5. biodiversity, flora & fauna - dún an rí athlone shd

SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR

180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-1

5. BIODIVERSITY, FLORA & FAUNA

5.1 Introduction This chapter assesses the likely significant effects that the proposed development may have on

Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna and mitigates any potential effects that are identified. Particular attention

has been paid to species and habitats of ecological importance. These include species and habitats with

national and international protection under the Wildlife Acts 1976-2017, EU Habitats Directive and the

EU Birds Directive among other relevant legislation. Where potential effects are identified, mitigation is

prescribed and residual impacts on flora and fauna are assessed.

The ecological assessment considers potential impact of the proposed development on biodiversity. In

summary, planning permission is sought by Castlestar (Athlone) Limited for a 5-year permission for

development on a site which extends to 16.615 ha in the townlands of Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and

Coosan, Athlone, Co. Westmeath. The proposed development is for the construction of 426 no.

residential units, development of a crèche facility, the construction of a 430m section of a new distributor

road linking Coosan and Cornamaddy as well as the provision of shared communal and private open

space, car and bicycle parking, site landscaping and public lighting, services, access with the Coosan Road

and new distributor road, and all associated site development works.

The aim of this ecological impact assessment is to ensure that elements of the proposed project that may

potentially affect biodiversity, habitats or species are adequately assessed. This assessment quantifies any

potential impacts relating to biodiversity and identifies the mitigation or design measures required to

avoid, reduce and mitigate any potential effect. Where potential for impact was identified at an early

stage in the project, alterations to the project layout have been incorporated. Mitigation has been derived

following a collaborative approach working with a multi-disciplinary team including project engineers,

landscape architects, hydrologists and ecologists.

The assessment of the development site began with a desk study of available published data on sites

designated for nature conservation, other ecologically sensitive sites, habitats and species of interest in the

vicinity of the proposed development. A review of OSI mapping, online environmental web-mappers

and ortho-photography was also undertaken. The baseline information obtained from the desk study was

the first stage in defining a zone of influence of the proposed development.

Following the desk studies, including review of previously completed ecological surveys, a multi-

disciplinary ecological walkover survey (as per Section 4.2 of Ecological Survey Techniques for Protected

Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Schemes’ (NRA, 2009)) and a separate dusk bat survey

was conducted for the development site. A multi-disciplinary survey aims to undertake habitat assessment

through classification, mapping and compilation of flora species lists and habitat suitability assessments for

faunal species. The ecological surveys undertaken provided vital baseline information regarding the

existing ecology of development site.

The information provided in this assessment, accurately and comprehensively describes the baseline

ecological environment; provides an accurate prediction of the likely ecological impacts of the proposed

development; prescribes mitigation as necessary; and, describes the residual ecological impacts. The

specialist studies, analysis and reporting have been undertaken in accordance with the appropriate

guidelines as fully described in the methodology section of this report.

5.1.1 Requirements for Ecological Impact Assessment

National Legislation

The Wildlife Act, 1976–2017 (S.I. No. 166 of 2017), is the principle mechanism for the legislative

protection of wildlife in Ireland. The Wildlife Act provides strict protection for species of conservation

value. The Wildlife Act protects species from injury, disturbance and damage to breeding and resting

sites. These species are therefore considered in this report as ecological receptors. Natural Heritage


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-2

Areas (NHAs) and Proposed Natural Heritage Areas (pNHAs) are heritage sites that are designated for

the protection of flora, fauna, habitats and geological sites. Only NHAs are designated under the Wildlife

(Amendment) Act 2017. These sites do not form part of the Natura 2000 network of European sites and

the AA process, or screening for same, does not apply to NHAs or pNHAs. Proposed Natural Heritage

Areas (pNHAs) were published on a non-statutory basis and have no statutory protection. However, these

sites are considered to be of significance for wildlife and habitats as they may form statutory designated

sites in the future (NPWS, 2018).

The Flora (Protection) Order, 2015 provides protection to a wide variety of protected plant species in

Ireland including vascular plants, mosses, liverworts, lichens and stoneworts. Under the Flora Protection

Order, it is illegal to cut, uproot or damage species listed in any way or to alter, damage or interfere in any

way with their habitats.

National Policy

The National Biodiversity Action Plan 2017-2021 is a framework for the conservation and protection of

biodiversity in Ireland. The main objective of the plan is to conserve and restore biodiversity and

ecosystem services. Objective 1 of the National Biodiversity Action Plan identifies the following relevant

measures in relation to future developments:

“Mainstreaming biodiversity into decision-making across all sectors”.

“All Public Authorities and private sector bodies move towards no net loss of

biodiversity through strategies, planning, mitigation measures, appropriate offsetting

and/or investment in Blue-Green infrastructure”.

Such policies have informed the evaluation of ecological features recorded within the study area and the

ecological assessment process.

European Legislation

The Habitats Directive (together with the Birds Directive) forms the cornerstone of Europe's nature

conservation within the EU. It is built around two pillars: the Natura 2000 network of protected sites and

the strict system of species protection. The directive protects over 1,000 animal and plant species and

over 200 "habitat types" (e.g. special types of forests, meadows, wetlands, etc.), which are of European

importance. The EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), which were

transposed into Irish law as S.I. No. 94/1997 European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats)

Regulations 1997, recognise the significance of protecting rare and endangered species of flora and fauna,

and more importantly, their habitats. The 1997 Regulations and their amendments were subsequently

revised and consolidated in S.I. No. 477/2011- European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats)

Regulations 2011. This legislation requires the establishment and conservation of a network of sites of

particular conservation value that are to be termed ‘European Sites’.

Annex I of the Habitats Directive lists habitat types whose conservation requires the designation of

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). Priority habitats, such as Turloughs, which are in danger of

disappearing within the EU territory are also listed in Annex I. Annex II of the Directive lists animal and

plant species (e.g. marsh fritillary, Atlantic salmon, and Killarney fern) whose conservation also requires

the designation of SAC. Annex IV lists animal and plant species in need of strict protection such as lesser

horseshoe bat and otter, and Annex V lists animal and plant species whose taking in the wild and

exploitation may be subject to management measures. In Ireland, species listed under Annex V include

Irish hare, common frog and pine marten. Species can be listed in more than one Annex, as is the case

with otter and lesser horseshoe bat which are listed on both Annex II and Annex IV.

Council Directive 2009/147/EC (the Birds Directive) on the conservation of wild birds instructs Member

States to take measures to maintain populations of all bird species naturally occurring in the wild state in

the EU (Article 2). Such measures may include the maintenance and/or re-establishment of habitats in

order to sustain these bird populations (Article 3). A subset of bird species have been identified in the

Directive and are listed in Annex I as requiring special conservation measures in relation to their habitats.

These species have been listed on account of inter alia: their risk of extinction; vulnerability to specific

changes in their habitat; and/or due to their relatively small population size or restricted distribution.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-3

Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are to be identified and classified for these Annex I listed species and for

regularly occurring migratory species, paying particular attention to the protection of wetlands (Article 4).

In summary, the species and habitats provided National and International protection under these

legislative and policy documents have been considered in this Ecological Impact Assessment.

This assessment has been carried out in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive

(2014/52/EU) and the European Union (Planning and Development) (Environmental Impact

Assessment) Regulations 2018 [S.I. no 296 of 2018].

5.1.2 Legislation, Guidance and Policy Context

The following legislation applies with respect to habitats, fauna and water quality in Ireland:

Irish Wildlife Acts 1976 to 2017

The European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011

(transposes EU Birds Directive2009/147/EC and EU Habitats Directive 2009/147/EC,

92/43/EC)

The International Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 1971.

S.I. No. 272 of 2009: European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface

Waters) Regulations 2009 and S.I. No. 722 of 2003 European Communities (Water

Policy) Regulations which implement EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

and provide for implementation of ‘daughter’ Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC).

The following legislation applies with respect to invasive alien species:

Regulation 49 and 50 of European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats)

Regulations 2011 (SI 477 of 2011).

The assessment methodology is based primarily upon the Chartered Institute of Ecology and

Environmental Management ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland.

Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine’ (CIEEM, 2018) as well as the National Road Authority

(NRA)’s Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes Rev 2 (NRA,

2009). The survey methodology is primarily based on the NRA Guidelines on Ecological Surveying

Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna on National Road Schemes (NRA, 2009). The guidelines

listed below were consulted in the preparation of this document to inform the scope, structure and

content of the assessment. They are among the recognised guidance in Environmental Impact

Assessment and National Road Scheme assessments.

Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements

(EPA, 2002).

Environmental Assessment and Construction Guidelines (NRA, 2006).

Guidelines for assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes, (NRA,

2009). (referred to hereafter as the NRA Ecological Impact Assessment Guidelines)

Environmental Impact Assessment of National Road Schemes –A Practical Guide

(NRA, 2009).

Draft Revised guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact

Statements (EPA, 2017).

Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects, Guidance on the preparation of the

Environmental Impact Assessment Report (European Commission, 2017)

Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland. Terrestrial,

Freshwater, Coastal and Marine (CIEEM, 2018).

This assessment has been prepared with respect to the various planning policies and strategy

guidance documents listed below:

Planning and Development Acts 2000 - 2015

Westmeath County Development Plan 2014-2020.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-4

DoHPLG (2018). Guidelines for Planning Authorities and An Bord Pleanála on

Carrying out Environmental Impact Assessment. Department of Housing, Planning

and Local Government.

EPA (2003). Advice notes on current practice (in the preparation of Environmental

Impact Statements).

European Commission (2002). Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting

Natura 2000 sites.

5.1.3 Statement of Authority

A field assessment was undertaken by David McNicholas (B.Sc., M.Sc., MCIEEM) on the 16th

November 2018 and by Julie O’Sullivan on the 14th of May 2019. This report has been prepared by

David McNicholas who is a full member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental

Management (CIEEM) and has over 9 years professional ecological consultancy experience. Julie is an

experienced ecological consultant with over 6 years professional experience. This report has been

reviewed by Pat Roberts (B.Sc., MCIEEM) who has over 15 years’ experience in ecological assessment

and management.

5.2 Methodology Assessing the impacts of any project and associated activities requires an understanding of the ecological

baseline conditions prior to and at the time of the project proceeding. Ecological Baseline conditions are

those existing in the absence of proposed activities (CIEEM, 2018).

The following sections outline the methodologies utilised to establish the baseline ecological condition of

the proposed development site.

5.2.1 Desk Study

The desk study undertaken for this assessment included a thorough review of available ecological data

including the following:

Review of online web-mappers: National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS),

Teagasc, EPA (Envision), Water Framework Directive (WFD), Geological Survey of

Ireland (GSI) & Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI).

Review of Bird Atlases: (Sharrock, 1976; Lack, 1986; Gibbons et al., 1993; Balmer et

al., 2013).

Review of the Bat Conservation Ireland (BCI) Private Database.

Review of the publicly available National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) web-

mapper.

Data on potential occurrence of protected bryophytes in the NPWS; recently launched

Flora Protection Order Map Viewer – Bryophytes

Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) Reports.

Records from the National Parks and Wildlife Services (‘NPWS’) WS web-mapper

and review of specially requested records from the NPWS Rare and Protected Species

Database for the hectad in which the Proposed Development is located.

Review of NPWS Article 17 Metadata and GIS Database Files

A data request was sent to the NPWS scientific data unit on the 19 November 2018 for

additional information on rare and protected species or habitats. Data was received on

the 29/11/2018.

A consultation request was sent to the NPWS Development Application Unit (DAU)

on the 05 February 2019. An acknowledgment response was received, reference

number G Pre00041/2019, however no ecological constraints were identified.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-5

5.2.2 Identification of Target Receptors and Key Ecological Receptors

The methodology for assessment followed a precautionary screening approach with regard to the

identification of Key Ecological Receptors (KERs). Following a comprehensive desk study, initial site

visits and stakeholder consultation; “Target receptors” likely to occur in the zone of influence of the

development were identified. Potential target receptors include habitats and species that are protected

under the following legislation:

Annexes of the EU Habitats Directive.

Qualifying Interests (QI) of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) within the Zone of

Influence.

Species protected under the Wildlife Acts 1976-2012.

Species protected under the Flora Protection Order 2015.

5.2.3 Field Surveys

Multidisciplinary ecological walkover surveys of the development site were undertaken on the 16th

November 2018 and 14th of May 2019. Surveys were undertaken by both David McNicholas (B.Sc.,

M.Sc., MCIEEM) and Julie O’Sullivan (B.Sc., M.Sc.) respectively.

5.2.3.1 Multi-disciplinary Walkover Surveys (as per NRA Guidelines, 2009)

The surveys were undertaken at different times of the year and therefore cover the optimal survey periods

for different ecological receptors. The survey undertaken in May falls within the recognised optimum

period for vegetation surveys/habitat mapping, i.e. April to September (Smith et al., 2011). A

comprehensive walkover of the entire site was completed.

The walkover surveys were also designed to detect the presence, or likely presence, of a range of

protected species. The survey included a search for badger setts and areas of suitable habitat, potential

features likely to be of significance to bats and additional habitat features for the full range of other

protected species that are likely to occur in the vicinity of the proposed development (e.g. otter etc.). In

addition, an inventory of other species of local biodiversity interest was compiled including invertebrates

(butterflies, dragonflies, damselflies, beetles), plants, fungi etc.

During the walkover surveys of the site, vegetation was visually assessed for potential to support roosting

bats using a protocol set out in BCT Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: good practice Guidelines (3rd

edn) (Collins, J (ed.), 2016). Table 4-1 of the 2016 Guidelines identifies a grading protocol for assessing

structures, trees and commuting/foraging habitat for bats. The protocol is divided into four Suitability

Categories: High, Moderate, Low and Negligible.

The multi-disciplinary walkover surveys comprehensively covered the entire study area and based on the

survey findings, further detailed targeted surveys were carried out for features and locations of ecological

significance. These surveys were carried out in accordance with NRA Guidelines on Ecological Surveying

Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna on National Road Schemes (NRA, 2009).

During the multidisciplinary surveys, a search for Invasive Alien Species (IAS) listed under the Third

Schedule of the European Communities Regulations 2011 (S.I. 477 of 2015) was conducted.

Other targeted survey methodologies undertaken at the site are described in the following subsections.

5.2.3.2 Dedicated Habitat and Vegetation Composition Surveys

Habitats within the site were classified according to the guidelines set out in ‘A Guide to Habitats in

Ireland’’ (Fossitt, 2000), which classifies habitats based on the vegetation present and management


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-6

history. Vegetation was sampled by taking botanical quadrats/Relevés within representative habitat areas

of the site. This allowed for accurate habitat classification. The location of each of the quadrats and the

quadrat data is provided in Appendix 5-1. The extent of each habitat on site was mapped on site using

aerial photograph, hand held GPS and smartphone technology.

The habitat assessment surveys described in this report have been undertaken with reference to the

following guidelines and interpretation documents:

O’Neill, F.H., Martin, J.R., Devaney, F.M. & Perrin, P.M. (2013) The Irish semi-

natural grasslands survey 2007-2012. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 78. National Parks

and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Ireland.

Martin, J.R., O’Neill, F.H. & Daly, O.H. (2018) The monitoring and assessment of

three EU Habitats Directive Annex I grassland habitats. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No.

102. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Culture, Heritage and the

Gaeltacht, Ireland.

NPWS (2013) The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. Habitat

Assessments Volume 2. Version 1.1. Unpublished Report, National Parks & Wildlife

Services. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland.

Commission of the European Communities (2007) Interpretation manual of European

Union habitats. Eur 27. European Commission DG Environment.

Habitats considered to be of ecological significance and in particular having the potential to correspond to

those listed in Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC were identified and classified as KERs.

Plant nomenclature for vascular plants follows ‘New Flora of the British Isles’ (Stace, 2010), while mosses

and liverworts nomenclature follows ‘Mosses and Liverworts of Britain and Ireland - a field guide’ (British

Bryological Society, 2010).

5.2.3.3 Terrestrial Fauna Surveys

Dedicated surveys for bats, otter and badger were undertaken. The survey methodology for each are

outlined in the following paragraphs. During the multidisciplinary walkover surveys, records of

invertebrates including butterflies, damselflies, dragonflies, moths, beetles etc. were recorded. The

walkover survey was designed to detect the presence, or likely presence, of a range of protected habitats

and species. Incidental sighting/observations of birds and additional fauna were noted during the site visit.

Badger Survey

Dedicated badger surveys were conducted on the 16th November 2018 and 14th of May 2019. The

badger surveys covered the entire development footprint and surrounding boundary hedgerows/treelines.

The site was systematically searched for signs of badger, incidental setts, prints, latrines, foraging signs or

sightings. Setts were classified as per the convention set out in NRA (2009) (i.e. main, annexe, subsidiary,

outlier). The badger survey was not constrained by vegetation given the nature of the habitats within the

site and the timing of the surveys (NRA 2006a).

The badger survey was conducted adhering to best practice guidance (NRA, 2009) and followed the

‘Guidelines for the Treatment of Badger Prior to the Construction of National Roads Schemes’ (NRA,

2006a) and following CIEEM best practice competencies for species surveys (CIEEM, 20131

).

Otter Survey

Areas identified as providing potential habitat for otter, including the drainage ditch within the site, was

subject to specialist targeted survey. Surveys were conducted on the 16th November 2018 and 14th of

May 2019.

1 CIEEM, 2013, Technical Guidance Series – Competencies for Species Survey, Online, Available at: https://cieem.net/resource/competencies-for-species-survey-css, Accessed: 20.06.2019

https://cieem.net/resource/competencies-for-species-survey-css


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-7

Otter surveys were conducted as per NRA (2009) guidelines (Ecological Surveying Techniques for

Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Road Schemes). This involved a search for all

otter signs e.g. spraints, scat, prints, slides, trails, couches and holts. The dedicated otter survey also

followed the guidance as set out in NRA (2008) ‘Guidelines for the Treatment of Otters Prior to the

Construction of National Roads Schemes’ and following CIEEM best practice competencies for species

surveys (CIEEM, 2013).

Bats

A bat activity survey was undertaken on 14th of May 2019 with reference to BCT guidelines (Collins,

2016). The objective was to identify and assess bat species composition and activity within the site. During

the manual survey, transects were walked, recording bats in real time. Surveyors were equipped with an

active full spectrum bat detector, a BatLogger M (Elekon AG, Lucerne, Switzerland). Where possible,

species identification was made in the field and any other relevant information was also noted, e.g.

numbers, behaviour, features used, etc. All bat echolocation was recorded for subsequent analysis to

confirm species identifications.

Dusk surveys commenced 30 minutes before sunset and concluded 2.5 hours after sunset. Conditions

were warm, dry and calm (optimal for bat survey). Survey conditions were good during the survey with no

constraints to the such as persistent rain or strong winds.

All recordings were analysed using bat call analysis software, BatSound (Pettersson Elektronik AB,

Uppsala, Sweden), Kaleidoscope Converter and Viewer, v.5.1.3 (Wildlife Acoustics, Maynard, MA,

USA) or AnalookW 4.1 (Titley Scientific, Brendale, Australia). Bat species were identified using

established call parameters, to identify individual species or genera. In addition, any information on bat

behavior contained within echolocation calls, e.g. social calls, feeding buzzes, were noted.

Other species

Seasonal factors that affect distribution patterns and habits of species were taken into account when

conducting the surveys. The potential of the site to support certain populations (in particular those of

conservation importance that may not have been recorded during the field survey due to their seasonal

absence or nocturnal/cryptic nature) was assessed.

During the multi-disciplinary walkover survey a search for non-native invasive species was undertaken.

The survey focused on the identification of invasive species listed under the Third Schedule of the

European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (As Amended) (S.I. 477 of 2015).

5.2.4 Methodology for Assessment of Effects

The ecological impact assessment undertaken within this EIAR follows best practice guidelines listed

below. They are among the recognised guidance in Environmental Impact Assessment and National

Road Scheme assessments.

Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland. Terrestrial,

Freshwater, Coastal and Marine (CIEEM, 2018).

Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements

(EPA, 2002).

Environmental Assessment and Construction Guidelines (NRA, 2006).

Guidelines for assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes, (NRA,

2009). (referred to hereafter as the NRA Ecological Impact Assessment Guidelines)

Environmental Impact Assessment of National Road Schemes –A Practical Guide

(NRA, 2009).

Draft Revised guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact

Statements (EPA, 2017).

Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects, Guidance on the preparation of the

Environmental Impact Assessment Report (European Commission, 2017)


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-8

5.2.4.1 Geographical Framework and Ecological Evaluation

Guidance on Ecological Impact Assessment (CIEEM, 2018) recommends categories of nature

conservation value that relate to a geographical framework (e.g. international, through to local). This

assessment utilises the geographical framework described in Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological

Impact of National Road Schemes (NRA 2009). The guidelines provide a basis for determination of

whether any particular site is of importance on the following scales:

International

National

County

Local Importance (Higher Value)

Local Importance (Lower Value)

Locally Important (lower value) receptors include habitats and species that are widespread and of low

ecological significance only in the local area. Internationally Important sites are designated for

conservation as part of the Natura 2000 Network (SAC or SPA) or provide the best examples of habitats

or internationally important populations of protected flora and fauna.

5.2.4.2 Characterising Ecological Impacts and Effects

Effects identified have been described in accordance with (EPA, 2017) impact assessment criteria

presented in Table 5-1. The criteria for characterising magnitude and scale of ecological impacts are

further contextualised based on CIEEM guidelines (CIEEM, 2018) in Table 5-2.

The following terms were utilised when quantifying duration:

Temporary – up to 1 year

Short-term – 1 to 7 years

Medium term – 7 to 15 years

Long term – 15 to 60 years

Permanent – over 60 years Table 5-1: Criteria for assessing impact quality based on (EPA, 2017)

Effect Type Criteria

Positive

A change which improves the quality of the

environment e.g. increasing species diversity, improving

reproductive capacity of an ecosystem or removing

nuisances.

Neutral

No effects or effects that are imperceptible, within

normal bounds of variation or within the margin of

forecasting error.

Negative

A change which reduces the quality of the environment

e.g. lessening species diversity or reducing the

reproductive capacity of an ecosystem or by causing

nuisance.

Table 5-2: Criteria for characterising magnitude and scale of ecological impacts (CIEEM, 2018)

Characteristic Definition

Positive or Negative

Positive impact – a change that improves the quality of

the environment e.g. by increasing species diversity,

extending habitat or improving water quality. This may

also include halting or slowing an existing decline in the

quality of the environment.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-9

Characteristic Definition

Negative impact – a change which reduces the quality

of the environment e.g. destruction of habitat, removal

of foraging habitat, habitat fragmentation, pollution.

Extent

The spatial or geographical area over which the

impact/effect may occur under a suitably representative

range of conditions.

Magnitude

Magnitude refers to size, amount, intensity and volume.

It should be quantified if possible and expressed in

absolute or relative terms e.g. the amount of habitat

lost, percentage change to habitat area, percentage

decline in a species population.

Duration

Impacts and effects may be described as short, medium

or long-term and permanent or temporary and are

defined in months/years. Duration is defined in

relation to ecological characteristics.

Frequency and Timing

The number of times an activity occurs will influence

the resulting effect. The timing of an activity or change

may result in an impact if it coincides with critical life-

stages or seasons.

Reversibility

An irreversible effect is one from which recovery is not

possible within a reasonable timescale or there is no

reasonable chance of action being taken to reverse it. A

reversible effect is one from which spontaneous

recovery is possible or which may be counteracted by

mitigation.

5.2.4.3 Significance of Effect

The criteria for assessing impact significance based on EPA guidelines is outlined in Table 5-3 (EPA,

2017). Table 5-3: Criteria for assessing impact significance based on (EPA, 2017)

Effect Magnitude Definition

No change No discernible change in the ecology of the

affected feature.

Imperceptible Effect An effect capable of measurement but without

noticeable consequences.

Not Significant

An effect which causes noticeable changes in the

character of the environment but without

significant consequences.

Slight Effect

An effect which causes noticeable changes in the

character of the environment without affecting its

sensitivities.

Moderate Effect

An effect that alters the character of the

environment that is consistent with existing and

emerging trends.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-10

Effect Magnitude Definition

Significant Effect

An effect which, by its character, its magnitude,

duration or intensity alters a sensitive aspect of

the environment.

Very Significant

An effect which, by its character, magnitude,

duration or intensity significantly alters most of a

sensitive aspect of the environment.

Profound Effect An effect which obliterates sensitive

characteristics.

As per TII (NRA, 2009) and CIEEM (2018) best practice guidelines the following key elements should

also be examined when determining the significance of effects:

The likely effects on ‘integrity’ should be used as a measure to determine whether an

impact on a site is likely to be significant (NRA, 2009)

A ‘significant effect’ is an effect that either supports or undermines biodiversity

conservation objectives (CIEEM, 2018)

Integrity

In the context of ecological impact assessments, ‘integrity’ refers to the coherence of the ecological

structure and function, across the entirety of a site, that enables it to sustain all of the ecological resources

for which it has been valued. Impacts resulting in adverse changes to the nature, extent, structure and

function of component habitats and effects on the average population size and viability of component

species, would affect the integrity of a site, if it changes the condition of the ecosystem to unfavourable.

Conservation status

An impact on the conservation status of a habitat or species is considered to be significant if it will result

in a change in conservation status. According to CIEEM (2018) guidelines the definition for conservation

status in relation to habitats and species are as follows:

Habitats – conservation status is determined by the sum of the influences acting on the

habitat that may affect its extent, structure and functions as well as its distribution and

its typical species within a given geographical area

Species – conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the

species concerned that may affect its abundance and distribution within a given

geographical area.

As defined in the EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, the conservation of a habitat is favourable when:

Its natural range, and areas it covers within that range, are stable or increasing

The specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance

exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future

The conservation status of its typical species is favourable.

The conservation of a species is favourable when:

Population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself

on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats

The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for

the foreseeable future

There is and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its

population on a long-term basis.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-11

According to the NRA/CIEEM methodology, if it is determined that the integrity and/or conservation

status of an ecological feature will be impacted on, then the level of significance of that impact is related to

the geographical scale at which the impact will occur (i.e. local, county, national, international).

5.2.5 Incorporation of Mitigation

Section 5.5 of this EIAR assesses the potential effects of the proposed development to ensure that all

effects on sensitive ecological receptors are adequately addressed. Where significant effects on sensitive

ecological receptors are predicted, mitigation is incorporated into the project design or layout to address

such impacts. The implemented mitigation measures avoid potential for significant residual effects, post

mitigation.

5.2.6 Limitations

The information provided in this ecological impact assessment accurately and comprehensively describes

the baseline ecological environment; provides an accurate prediction of the likely ecological effects of the

proposed development; prescribes best practice and mitigation as necessary; and, describes the residual

ecological impacts. The specialist studies, analysis and reporting have been undertaken in accordance

with the appropriate guidelines. The habitats and species on the site were readily identifiable and

comprehensive assessments were made during the field visit. No significant limitations in the scope, scale

or context of the assessment have been identified.

5.3 Establishing the Ecological Baseline

5.3.1 Desk Study

The following sections describe the results of a survey of published material that was consulted as part of

the desk study for the purposes of the ecological assessment. It provides a baseline for the of the ecology

of the existing environment. Material reviewed includes the Site Synopses for Designated Sites for their

conservation importance compiled by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of the

Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (DAHRRGA), bird and plant

distribution atlases and other research publications.

5.3.2 Designated Sites

Using the GIS software, MapInfo (Version 10.0), designated sites within a radius of 15 kilometres of the

proposed development were identified. The designated sites are listed in Table 5-4. The location of all

EU Designated Sites are displayed in Figure 5-1, with all Nationally designated sites displayed in Figure 5-

2. The location of nearby Designated Sites is provided in Figure 5-3. Table 5-4 Designated sites in the Zone of Influence

Designated Site Distance from Proposed Development (km)

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)

Lough Ree SAC [000440] 1.0

River Shannon Callows SAC [000216] 2.0

Crosswood Bog SAC [002337] 3.4

Carn Park Bog SAC [002336] 5.4

Ballynamona Bog And Corkip Lough SAC

[002339]

9.6


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-12


Castlesampson Esker SAC [001625] 9.7

Pilgrim's Road Esker SAC [001776] 10.9

Mongan Bog SAC [000580] 11.3

Lough Funshinagh SAC [000611] 12.1

Fin Lough (Offaly) SAC [000576] 12.9

Special Protection Area (SPA)

Lough Ree SPA [004064] 1.0

Middle Shannon Callows SPA [004096] 2.0

Mongan Bog SPA [004017] 11.5

Natural Heritage Areas (NHA)

Carrickynaghtan Bog NHA [001623] 4.2

Clonydonnin Bog NHA [000565] 10.7

Ballynagrenia And Ballinderry Bog NHA

[000674]

14.3

Proposed Natural Heritage Areas (pNHA)

Lough Ree [000440] 1.0

River Shannon Callows [000216] 1.9

Crosswood Bog [000678] 3.4

Waterstown Lake [001732] 5.0

Carn Park Bog [000676] 5.4

Castlesampson Esker [001625] 9.3

Mongan Bog [000580] 11.3

Pilgrim's Road Esker [001776] 11.4

Fin Lough (Offaly) [000576] 12.8

Doon Esker Wood [001830] 12

Lough Funshinagh [000611] 12.1

Ballynagarbry [001713] 12.6

Clonfinlough Esker [000892] 12.7


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-13


Feacle Turlough [001634] 13.1

Lough Nanag Esker [000910] 14.1

Lough Slawn [001443] 14.2

Clonlyon Glebe Bog [000893] 14.5

Potential for effects on European sites is summarised in this report and is fully addressed in the Natura

Impact Statement submitted as part of the statutory consent process.

Where a nationally designated site, such as Lough Ree NHA, overlaps with the boundary of a European

designated site, i.e. Lough Ree SAC, the potential for impacts has been considered under the European

designation.

5.3.3 Annex I Habitats

In a search of the NPWS Article 17 datasets, including results of the Irish Semi-Natural Grasslands

Survey (O’Neill, et al. 2013), found no mapped Annex I habitats within the site. A small area of ‘Festuco-

Brometalia calcareous grassland [6210]’ and Molinia meadows [6410] were recorded in excess of 1km to

the north of the proposed development site, along the shores of Cloosana Lough. These were recorded

in 2011 and 2012 as part of the grassland monitoring project (O’Neill, et al. 2013).

Detailed mapping of the habitats within and surrounding Athlone has been undertaken by Maher and

Hamilton (2012); ‘Report on the Survey and Mapping of Habitats within Athlone Town’. This survey

had mapped the site as Improved agricultural grassland (GA1), as per Plate 2, Appendix IV of the Maher

and Hamilton (2012) document.

No Annex I habitats were recorded within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development site.

5.3.4 Bryophytes

A search of the NPWS online data map for bryophytes (NPWS, 2020) was also undertaken with no

protected bryophytes recorded within or adjacent to the proposed development.

5.3.5 Breeding and Wintering Bird Atlases

A number of sources were assessed to determine the likely usage of the site by both breeding and

wintering bird species, including Bird Atlases, National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC), BirdWatch

Ireland and Conservation Objectives Supporting Documents from the National Parks and Wildlife

Service (NPWS) for nearby Special Protection Areas (SPAs). The following sub sections provide a

breakdown of the sources used and results obtained.

The Bird Atlas 2007-11: The breeding and wintering birds of Britain and Ireland (Balmer et al., 2013)

provides the most up-to-date information regarding the distribution and relative abundance of bird

species in Britain and Ireland, based on surveys carried out between 2007 and 2011.

The atlases show data for breeding and wintering birds respectively in individual 10 km by 10 km squares

(hectads). Table 5-5 shows species that have been recorded within the relevant hectad (N04) on National

Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) datasets that are listed in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive or on the

BoCCI Red List. In addition, Table 5.5 shows those species found in the relevant hectad (N04), which

are recorded as breeding in the most recent atlas. Birds listed under Annex I are offered special

protection by the EU Birds Directive. Those listed on the Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland

(BoCCI) Red List meet one or more of the following criteria:

Fig 5-1

MKO Tuam Road, Galway, Ireland, H91 VW84. +353 (0) 91 735611 www.mkoireland.ie

MAP TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE:

DRAWING BY: CHECKED BY:

MAP NO.:

ISSUE NO.:

SCALE:

DATE:

Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No. AR 0021819 © Ordnance Survey Ireland/Government of Ireland

David McNicholas Pat Roberts09-09-2019

1:180,000

180816a-2019.09.09-D

Figure 5-1Site in Relation to EU Designated Sites180816a - Castlestar Athlone SHD

Map Legend


Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

15km Buffer

Site Boundary


MAP TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE:


MAP NO.:

ISSUE NO.:

SCALE:

DATE:



1:180,000

180816a-2019.09.09-D

Figure 5-2Site in relation to Nationally designated sites180816a - Castlestar Athlone SHD

Map Legend

Proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA)

Natural Heritage Area (NHA)

15km Buffer

Site Boundary


MAP TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE:


MAP NO.:

ISSUE NO.:

SCALE:

DATE:



1:100,000

180816a-2019.09.09-D

Figure 5-3Site in relation to nearby designated sites180816a - Castlestar Athlone SHD

Map Legend

Special Area of Conservation (SAC)


Connectivity to downstream designated sites

Proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA)

Natural Heritage Area (NHA)

Site Boundary


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-16

IUCN: Global conservation status (Critically Endangered (CE), Endangered (E) or

Vulnerable (V), but not Near Threatened. These species are recognised as the highest

priorities for action at a global scale and are thus priorities at an all-Ireland level

European conservation status. The conservation status of all European species was

assessed most recently by Birdlife International (2004), one of the main changes in the

revision being to include the IUCN criteria. These species are those of global

conservation concern (including those classified as Near Threatened) and are Red-

listed.

The Irish breeding population has undergone significant historical decline since 1800.

The Irish breeding population or range has declined by 50% or more in the thirteen

years from 1998-2011 (BDp1) or the 25 years from 1980-2013 (BDp2).

The Irish non-breeding population has undergone a significant decline of 50% in the

last 25 years.

The Irish breeding range has undergone a decline of 70% or more in the last 25 years.

Four species listed under Annex I of the EU Birds Directive have been recorded within the relevant

hectad (N04). A further 10 red-listed birds of conservation concern have been recorded breeding within

the relevant hectad (Table 5-5). Table 5-5 - Bird Atlas and NBDC Bird Data (Hectad N04)

Common name Scientific name Designation

Corn crake Crex crex Protected EU Birds Directive

Annex I Bird Species

Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria

Common kingfisher Alcedo atthis

Merlin Falco columbarius

Snowy owl Bubo scandiaca

Whooper swan Cygnus

Little egret Egretta garzetta

Common tern Sterna hirundo

Northern pintail Anas acuta

Common redshank Tringa totanus

Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus

Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata Birds of Conservation Concern –

Red list

Herring gull Larus argentatus

Hen harrier Circus cyaneus

Black-headed gull Larus ridibundus

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-17

Common name Scientific name Designation

Red grouse Lagopus lagopus

Barn owl Tyto alba

5.3.6 National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) Records

A search of the National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) records for the relevant hectad, N04,

provided records on a number of fauna species of conservation concern, excluding marine species and

bird species. These are provided in Table 5-6. Records on species of conservation concern recorded

from the area are also provided and outlined in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6 NBDC Records for Species of Conservation Interest in hectad N04

Species Scientific Name Red List Status Habitats Directive

Smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris LC WA

Common frog Rana temporaria LC Annex V

Viviparous lizard Zootoca viviparia LC WA

Badger Meles meles LC WA

Eurasian Pygmy Shrew Sorex minutus LC WA

Red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris LC WA

Otter Lutra lutra NT Annex II and Annex

IV

Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus LC WA

Freshwater White-

clawed Crayfish

Austropotamobius

pallipes

- Annex II, Annex V,

WA

Marsh Fritillary Euphydryas aurinia VU Annex II, WA

Desmoulin's Whorl

Snail

Vertigo (Vertigo)

moulinsiana

EN Annex II

Geyer's Whorl Snail Vertigo (Vertigo) geyeri VU Annex II

Large White-moss Leucobryum glaucum - Annex IV

Brown Long-eared Bat Plecotus auritus LC Annex IV

Daubenton's Bat Myotis daubentonii LC Annex IV

Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri NT Annex IV


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-18

Species Scientific Name Red List Status Habitats Directive

Pine marten Martes martes LC Annex V

Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus

sensu lato

LC Annex IV

Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus LC Annex IV Annex II, Annex IV, Annex V – Of EU Habitats Directive, Wildlife Acts – Irish Wildlife Acts (1976, 2017).

5.3.7 National Parks and Wildlife Service - Protected Species Records

National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) online records were searched to see if any rare or protected

species of flora or fauna have been recorded from hectad N04. An information request was also sent to

the NPWS requesting records from the Rare and Protected Species Database. Table 5-7 lists rare and

protected species records obtained from NPWS, as received on the 4th July 2019, as well as those

recorded available through the online NPWS map viewer.

Table 5-7 - National Parks and Wildlife Service Map Viewer Records

Scientific name Common name Red List Status Flora Protection

Order/Red List

Habitats

Directive/Birds

Directive/Wildlife

Act

Austropotamobius

pallipes

Freshwater

Crayfish

- - Annex II, V, WA

Cladonia ciliata Cladonia ciliata - - Annex V

Cladonia

portentosa

Reindeer Moss - - Annex V

Clinopodium

acinos

Basil Thyme - FPO; NT -

Dicranella

cerviculata

Red-neck Forklet-

moss

- NT -

Erigeron acer Blue Fleabane - V -

Erinaceus

europaeus

West European

Hedgehog

LC - WA

Frangula alnus Alder Buckthorn - R -

Lacerta vivipara Viviparous Lizard LC - WA

Lepus timidus

subsp. hibernicus

Irish Hare LC - Annex V, WA

Lissotriton

vulgaris

Smooth Newt LC - WA


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-19

Scientific name Common name Red List Status Flora Protection

Order/Red List

Habitats

Directive/Birds

Directive/Wildlife

Act

Lutra lutra Otter NT - Annex II, Annex

IV

Martes martes Pine Marten LC - Annex V

Meles meles Badger LC - WA

Mustela erminea

subsp. hibernica

Irish Stoat LC - WA

5.3.8 Bat Records

A search of the Bat Conservation Ireland (BCI) Database for all bat records for the area within and

surrounding the proposed development was conducted on the 16th of May 2019. The BCI database can

be searched in relation to identified Roosts, Survey Transects and Other Observations. Searches can be

conducted for refined areas e.g. 1km buffer of a specific location or for wider areas including hectads and

entire grid squares. Roost data details identified roosts and bat species recorded utilising the roost sites.

Transect survey data include results of the BCI Car Based Bat Monitoring Scheme, All Ireland

Daubenton’s Bat Waterways Survey and additional surveys completed by private organisations and

individuals.

A search of a 1km and a 10km buffer from the proposed development site returned a number of

transects records and ad-hoc records for bat species, however, no roosts records were identified, see

Table 5-8.

Table 5-8 – Bat Conservation Ireland Records

Tra

nse

cts

Name Grid ref start

easting

Grid ref start

northing

Species

Big Meadow

Athlone Transect 203917 240202 Myotis daubentonii;

Unidentified bat

Burgess Park

Transect spot 1 203917 240202 Unidentified bat

Burgess Park

Transect spot 10 204009 241049 Myotis daubentonii;

Unidentified bat

Burgess Park


Unidentified bat

Burgess Park


Unidentified bat

Burgess Park


Unidentified bat

Burgess Park


Unidentified bat

Burgess Park


Unidentified bat


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-20

Burgess Park


Unidentified bat

Burgess Park


Unidentified bat

Burgess Park


Unidentified bat

Kilgarvan Glebe

Townland Transect 208300 234900 Myotis daubentonii;

Unidentified bat

Railway Bridge;

Athlone Transect

203617 241906 Myotis

daubentonii;

Unidentified bat

Ad

-ho

c

BATLAS 2010 207300 235300 Pipistrellus

pygmaeus


pygmaeus

BATLAS 2010 207200 244400 Myotis

daubentonii;

Pipistrellus

pipistrellus

(45kHz);

Pipistrellus

pygmaeus

BATLAS 2010 214800 242100 Nyctalus leisleri;

Pipistrellus

pygmaeus


pygmaeus

BATLAS 2010 207600 246100 Nyctalus leisleri;

Pipistrellus

pygmaeus;

Pipistrellus spp.

(45kHz/55kHz)


pygmaeus;

Unidentified bat

EIA survey- Paul

Scott (Scott

Cawley)

200232 240761 Pipistrellus

pipistrellus

(45kHz);

Pipistrellus

pygmaeus

EIS and Road

Surveys - Conor

Kelleher


pipistrellus

(45kHz)


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-21

The information provides for a baseline understanding of bat species in the area and indicates that the

region has been previously surveyed for bats. The records identify the wider area of the proposed

development as being used by foraging and commuting bat species.

5.3.9 Other Taxa

The proposed development site does not fall within any sensitivity area for freshwater pearl mussel

(Margaritifera margaritifera) or other protected species, based on a review of the most up to date available

data. The data provided in the previous sections provides a comprehensive study of the records for

species of conservation concern and therefore provided a comprehensive understanding of the baseline

environment.

5.3.10 Invasive Species

The NBDC database also contains records of invasive species identified within the relevant hectad.

Records of ‘high impact’ invasive species for hectad N04 are provided in Table 5-9.

Table 5-9. NBDC records for Invasive Species

Common Name Scientific Name

Canadian waterweed Elodea canadensis

Indian balsam Impatiens glandulifera

Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica

Rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum

Zebra Mussel Dreissena (Dreissena) polymorpha

American Mink Mustela vison

EIS and Road

Surveys - Conor

Kelleher


pipistrellus

(45kHz);

Pipistrellus

pygmaeus;

Plecotus auritus

EIS and Road

Surveys - Conor

Kelleher


pipistrellus

(45kHz);

Pipistrellus

pygmaeus

EIS and Road

Surveys - Conor

Kelleher


pipistrellus

(45kHz);

Pipistrellus

pygmaeus;

Plecotus auritus

EIS surveys -

Brian Keeley


pygmaeus


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-22

Common Name Scientific Name

Grey Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

5.3.11 Local Hydrology and Hydrogeology

The following information is based on a detailed Hydrological Assessment undertaken for the proposed

development as fully described in Chapter 7 of this EIAR.

On a regional scale, the site is located within Hydrometric Area 26. The site is located between the 26E

Upper Shannon catchment and the 26G Upper Shannon catchment. It is located between the Shannon

[Upper]_SC_090 and the Shannon [Lower]_SC_010 sub-catchment under the Water Framework

Directive (WFD). A regional hydrology map is shown as Figure 7-1, Chapter 7 of the EIAR, of the

hydrological assessment.

An unnamed stream flows north from the northwestern corner of the proposed site boundary, and

continues north, discharging into Coosan Lough ~1.3km downstream. This is connected to Lough Ree

and the River Shannon. The proposed development site contains a single drainage ditch that flows in a

general southeast to northwest direction. These discharge to the above-mentioned unnamed stream to the

northwest of the site. A local hydrology map is shown as Figure 7-2, Chapter 7 of the EIAR and the on-

site drainage ditch has been mapped in the detailed site habitat map, see Figure 5-4.

The Athlone Gravels groundwater body which underlies the site is classified by the GSI (www.gsi.ie) as a

Locally Important Aquifer, which is Moderately Productive only in Local Zones. This gravel is thought to

be approximately 10-20 metres deep in the area (GSI, 2004). Massive unbedded lime-mudstones also

underlie the site. A bedrock aquifer map is shown as Figure 7-3, Chapter 7 of the EIAR.

This aquifer has expected transmissivity in the range of 200-1500m2/d) and high storativity (approx. 10%).

Groundwater here should be unconfined (GSI, 2004). Groundwater flow paths are expected to be diffuse

and relatively short (i.e. up to several hundred metres), with flow direction being mainly to the west,

driven by topography (GSI, 2004).

5.3.12 Conclusions of the Desk Study

The desktop study has provided information about the existing environment in hectad N04, within which

the proposed development is located. The mammal species recorded within the relevant hectad have

widespread range and distributions in Ireland and are likely to be recorded frequently throughout Ireland

(Marnell et al, 20092

). Bat records within 10km of the proposed development site revealed that the wider

area has been studied for bats. This suggests that the area offers potential for foraging and commuting bat

species. A number of protected bird species have been previously recorded within the hectad N04. The

site does not offer any significant habitat for bird species.

The desk study has identified a small watercourse occurring along the northwest of the site boundary that

provides connectivity to the downstream Coosan Lough to the north of the site, located in excess of 1km

from the site boundary. Coosan Lough is connected to the River Shannon via a small channel. Although

the watercourse occurring within the site boundary is not designated for nature conservation, it does

provide connectivity to downstream designated sites. For this reason, further assessment will be required

in order to avoid any potential for impact on downstream water quality associated with the proposed

development.

No Habitats Directive Annex I habitats have been recorded within the proposed development site

boundary, as per NPWS records consulted or other ecology survey reports reviewed.

2Marnell, F., Kingston, N. & Looney, D. (2009) Ireland Red List No. 3: Terrestrial Mammals, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-23

5.4 Description of the Existing Environment

5.4.1 Description of Habitats

This section of the EIAR provides a detailed description of the findings of a multidisciplinary walkover

survey conducted on the 16th November 2018 and 14th of May 2019. All habitats within and adjacent to

the site of the proposed development were readily identifiable during the site visit. A total of eight habitats

were recorded within the development site (Table 5-10). The habitat classifications and codes correspond

to those described in ‘A Guide to Habitats in Ireland’ (Fossitt 2000). Vegetation was sampled by taking

botanical quadrats/Relevés within representative habitat areas of the site. This allowed for accurate habitat

classification. The location of each of the quadrats and the quadrat data is provided in Appendix 5-1 of

this report. A habitat map of the site is provided in Figure 5-4. The habitat map is also provided with the

proposed infrastructure footprint overlain in Figure 5-5.

Table 5-10 - Habitats recorded on the proposed development

Habitat Name Fossitt Code

Dry meadows and grassy verges (GS2)

Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1)

Wet grassland (GS4)

Bog woodland (WN7)

Drainage ditch (FW4)

Hedgerow (WL1)

Treeline (WL2)

Buildings and artificial surfaces (BL3)

Dry Meadows and Grassy Verges (GS2)

A large proportion of the study area, 11.28 hectares - including three of the four agricultural fields on the

site, have been classified as Dry meadows and grassy verges (GS2), see Plate 5-1 and Figure 5-4. The

vegetation within these fields is dominated by Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), red fescue (Festuca rubra)

and some meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), with ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata) also

abundant. Other species recorded within these fields included meadow buttercup (Ranunculus acris),

creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius), sweet-vernal grass

(Anthoxanthum odoratum) and occasional ragweed (Senecio jacobaea), hogweed (Heracleum

sphondylium), meadowsweet (filipendula ulmaria) and creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense). Quadrat data

for these locations is provided in Appendix 5-1 of this report. The composition and abundance of species

recorded indicate that the field corresponds to the Irish Vegetation Classification (IVC) habitat Festuca

rubra – Plantago lanceolata grassland (GL3C) (Perrin, 2016).


MAP TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE:


MAP NO.:

ISSUE NO.:

SCALE:

DATE:



1:3,400

180816-2019.09.11-D

Figure 5.4Habitat Map180816 - Cornamagh SHD

Habitat legend


Dry Calcareous and Neutral Grassland (GS1)


Wet Grassland (GS4)

Scrub (WS1)

Linear habitatsBuildings and Artificial Surfaces (BL3)Drainage Ditches (FW4)Hedgerows (WL1)Treelines (WL2)

Map LegendSite boundary


MAP TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE:


MAP NO.:

ISSUE NO.:

SCALE:

DATE:



1:3,400

180816-2019.09.11-D

Figure 5.5Habitat map with proposal layout overlain180816 - Cornamagh SHD

Habitat legend


Dry Calcareous and Neutral Grassland (GS1)


Wet Grassland (GS4)

Scrub (WS1)

Linear habitatsBuildings and Artificial Surfaces (BL3)Drainage Ditches (FW4)Hedgerows (WL1)Treelines (WL2)



180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-26

Plate 5-1: Dry Meadows and Grassy Verges (GS2) within the central and north of the site

Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1)

The southern field within the site, comprising 2.95 hectares, has been identified as Dry calcareous and

neutral grassland (GS1) as it had a slightly different species composition, see Plates 5-2 and 5-3. The area

of this habitat is shown in Figure 5-4. The management regime on site comprises of regularly grazing by

livestock and all of the lands within the site are managed by grazing (by horses at the time of the site visit).

This resulted in a short sward during the initial site visit. The vegetation composition within this

calcareous grassland is dominated by sweet vernal-grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), Yorkshire fog

(Holcus lanatus), red clover (Trifolium pratense), white clover (Trifolium repens), common sorrel

(Rumex acetosa), meadow buttercup (Ranunculus acris), red fescue (Festuca rubra), crested dog’s-tail

(Cynosurus cristatus) and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). The edges of the field support a more

improved grassland with abundant creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), as shown in Plate 5-3. Detailed

quadrat data for this area is provided in Appendix 5-1 of this EIAR. The composition and abundance of

species recorded indicate that the field corresponds to the Irish Vegetation Classification (IVC) habitat

Red Fescue – Yellow Rattle grassland (GL3E).


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-27

Plate 5-2 Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1) within the southern section of the site.

Plate 5-3 Rank boundary areas of Dry calcareous and neutral grassland comprising of creeping thistle and ragwort.

Wet grassland (GS4)

Wet grassland (GS4) habitat occurs within the north-western part of the site, see Figure 5-4,

where the land is low-lying and waterlogged, due to poor drainage as a result of low flowing


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-28

drainage ditches to the northwest of the site, see Plate 5-4. Species recorded within this part of

the site were typical of wet ground and was dominated by meadow sweet (Filipendula ulmaria),

silverweed (Potentilla anserina), creeping buttercup, purple moor-grass (Molinia caerulea),

creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera) and creeping thistle. This area of wet grassland is also

becoming encroached by gorse (Ulex europaeus), birch (Betula pubescens) and willow (Salix

spp.) scrub.

Plate 5-4 Wet grassland (GS4) located within the northwest of the site

Bog woodland (WN7)

A small area of Bog woodland (WN7) habitat, comprising approximately 0.3 ha, is located within

the northwestern boundary of the site and is dominated predominantly by birch (Betula

pubescens) and willow (Salix spp.) with some gorse on the peripheries, see Plate 5.5. The

understory comprises predominantly of bramble and nettle with bryophytes comprising of

Mnium hornum and Polytrichum formosum, and Rhytidiadelphus sp. Although this area of

woodland does not occur on a bog/peatland, the vegetation composition and the wet nature of

this part of the site has resulted in the woodland conforming to this habitat type. This habitat

corresponds to the IVC community type Downy Birch – Bramble woodland (WL4D).


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-29

Plate 5-5 Bog woodland WN7 located within the northwest of the site.

Hedgerows (WL1)

Hedgerows (WL1) form much of the site boundaries and comprise predominantly of hawthorn

(Crataegus monogyna) dominated hedgerows to the east and north as well as many of the internal

field boundaries, see Figure 5-4 and Plate 5-6. The understory vegetation generally consists of

nettle (Urtica dioica), ivy (Hedera helix), broadleaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius), cow parsley

(Anthriscus sylvestris), common vetch (Vicia sativa), Hart’s tongue fern (Asoplenium

scolopendrium), lesser celandine (Ficaria verna) and primrose (Primula vulgaris) and goose-grass

(Galium aparine).


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-30

Plate 5-6 Hedgerow (WL1) along the site

Treeline (WL2)

A Treeline (WL2) divides the most southerly field was dominated by beech (Fagus sylvatica) and

ash (Fraxinus excelsior) with some sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), holly (Ilex aquifolium) and

a small number of individual hazel trees (Corylus avellana), see Figure 5-4 and Plate 5-7. This

treeline has also been identified as a townland boundary using Ordinance Survey of Ireland

(OSI) maps. The treeline on the north-western boundary of the site is dominated by willow (Salix

spp.), downy birch (Betula pubescens) with some ash (Fraxinus excelsior), elder (Sambucus

nigra) and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna). The understory of the treelines also includes

ground-ivy (Glechoma hederacea), bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), ivy (Hedera hibernica),

bramble (Rubus fructicosus), nettle (Urtica dioica), dandelion (Taraxacum agg.), mouse-ear

(Cerastium fontanum), common dog-violet (Viola riviniana) and primrose (Primula vulgaris).

A tree survey has been prepared for the proposed development that assesses the quality of the

trees occurring within the proposed development boundary as well as identifying those that will

be retained and those that will be removed. The tree survey has been submitted as part of the

planning application documentation (Cunnane Stratton Reynolds, 2019).


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-31

Plate 5-7 Treeline (WL2) within the site boundary

Drainage ditch (FW4)

A Drainage ditch (FW4) traverses’ part of the site and the existing site drainage layout is shown

in Figure 5-4 and Plate 5-8. The drainage ditch within the site occurs along a hedgerow

dominated by hawthorn and bramble and was observed to have a low flow. Other species

recorded growing on the margins of or within the drain include floating sweet-grass (Glyceria

fluitans), bramble, nettle and broad-leaved dock.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-32

Plate 5-8 Drainage ditch (FW4) along the north western site boundary

Built concrete block walls form part of the western boundary of the site and have been assessed as

Buildings and artificial surfaces (BL3), see Plate 5-9.

Plate 5-9 Boundary wall (BL3) located within the west of the site

5.4.2 Protected Flora

No rare and protected plant species recorded in the desk study, including those obtained from NPWS

data request (see Table 5-7), were recorded within the study area.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-33

5.4.3 Invasive species

No invasive species were recorded within the area of the proposed development during any of the site

visits.

5.4.4 Significance of Habitats

The field surveys found no evidence of botanical species protected under the Flora (protection) Order

(1999, as amended 2015), listed in the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) or listed in the Irish Red Data

Books. All plant species recorded are common in the Irish landscape and no invasive species were

recorded on the site. This section attributes the significance of each of the habitats recorded within the

site of the proposed development in accordance with best practice guidance (NRA, 2009). None of the

habitats recorded on site were found to correspond to those listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive.

Dry meadows and grassy verges (GS2) - local importance (lower value)

Dry meadows and grassy verges (GS2) have been assessed as of Local importance (lower value) as it

contains areas of agricultural habitat that is widespread in the wider landscape, although of some local

importance to wildlife. The area is also subject to agricultural management and is common in the wider

landscape. The composition and abundance of species recorded indicate that the field corresponds to the

Irish Vegetation Classification (IVC) habitat Festuca rubra – Plantago lanceolata grassland (GL3C)

(Perrin, 2016).

Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1) - local importance (higher value)

The composition and abundance of species recorded within the area of Dry calcareous and neutral

grassland (GS1) indicate that the field corresponds to the Irish Vegetation Classification (IVC) habitat Red

Fescue – Yellow Rattle grassland (GL3E)3

. It does not contain the nature and diversity of species to

conform to Annex I habitats. The grazing of this habitat by livestock has resulted in an increase in species

such as creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and ragwort (Senecio jacobea) becoming dominant, particularly

around the edges of the field, as shown in Plate 5.3. It has a higher diversity of species than the Dry

Meadows and Grassy Verges habitat and as such has been assigned Local Importance (Higher Value).

Wet grassland (GS4) - local importance (higher value)

The Wet grassland (GS4) has been assessed as of local importance (higher value) as it comprises a small

area of seminatural grassland within the site. The habitat corresponds to the IVC classification Creeping

Bent – Creeping Buttercup marsh-grassland (GL2A)4

. The habitat does not conform to any EU Habitats

Directive Annex I habitat.

Bog woodland (WN7) - local importance (higher value)

This Bog woodland (WN7) habitat corresponds to the IVC community type Downy Birch – Bramble

woodland (WL4D) but does not correspond to the EU Annex I habitat 91D0 Bog Woodland as it lacks

the ground flora of Sphagnum mosses. It does not correspond to 91E0 Alluvial forests with Alnus

glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior as it lacks the species diversity and is not associated with rivers or lakes

that cause seasonal inundation (Perrin et al. 20085

, NPWS, 2019, Cross, et al. 20136

).

Hedgerows (WL1) & Treelines (WL2) - local importance (higher value)

3 Perrin (2019) Irish Vegetation Classification: Community synopsis Festuca rubra – Rhinanthus minor grassland. http://www.biodiversityireland.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/GL3E.pdf. Accessed 04 July 2019. 4 Perrin, 2017, Irish Vegetation Classification (IVC), Creeping Bent – Creeping Buttercup marsh-grassland (GL2A), V1.1, Online, Available at: http://www.biodiversityireland.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/GL2Ai.pdf, Accessed: 10.09.2019 5 Perrin, P., Martin, M., Barron, S., O’Neill, F., McNutt, K. and Delaney, A. 2008. National Survey of Native

Woodlands 2003-2008. Unpublished report to the National Parks & Wildlife Service. Dublin. www.npws.ie 6 Cross, J. & Lynn, D. (2013) Results of a monitoring survey of bog woodland. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 69.

National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland.

http://www.npws.ie/


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-34

Hedgerows (WL1), Treelines (WL2) are assessed as of local importance (higher value), as they are semi-

natural habitats and provide cover and commuting corridors for a variety of local flora and fauna.

Drainage ditches (FW4) - local importance (lower value)

Drainage ditches (FW4) have been assessed as of local importance (lower value) as they are small in size

and do not support suitable foraging or commuting habitat for species such as salmonids or otter.

However, the drainage ditches on site do provide connectivity to larger watercourses downstream of the

proposed development site, including Lough Ree SAC and SPA.

Built concrete block walls (BL3) - local importance (lower value)

Built concrete block walls (BL3) form part of the western boundary of the site and have been assessed as

of local importance (lower value) as they provide limited value to local wildlife.

An assessment of likely impacts as a result of habitat loss/disturbance is considered in Section 5.5 of this

Ecological Impact Assessment from a precautionary point of view.

5.4.5 Fauna in the Existing Environment

The walkover survey was designed to detect the presence, or likely presence, of a range of protected

species, including birds, bats, otter and badger. Potential suitable habitats were investigated for signs of

animal presence. The following subsections provide a breakdown of the species recorded within the

proposed development boundary during the site visit and assessment.

5.4.5.1 Birds

A total of 13 bird species were recorded within or immediately adjacent to the site on the 16th November

2018 and 14th of May 2019 (Table 5-11). Bird species recorded within the site boundaries during the site

visit were an assemblage of common birds that are typical of the agricultural and wet grassland habitats on

the site. Ten of the bird species observed are green-listed and are common in Ireland. Three of the

species observed are amber listed. No bird species of conservation concern were recorded within the or

adjacent to the study area during the site visit.

Table 5-11 Bird species observed during the field visit, and current conservation status

Common Name Scientific Name BoCCI Status

Robin Erithacus rubecula Amber (breeding)

Snipe Gallinago gallinago Amber

Willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus Amber

Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Green

Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs Green

Hooded crow Corvus cornix Green

Great tit Parus major Green

Blue tit Parus caeruleus Green

Blackbird Turdus merula Green

Magpie Pica pica Green


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-35

Common Name Scientific Name BoCCI Status

Rook Corvus frugilegus Green

Woodpigeon Columba palumbus Green

Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla Green

5.4.5.2 Bats During a dedicated bat survey of the site on the 14th of May 2019 an emergence survey was undertaken

by two surveyors, positioned at a mature oak tree within the northwest of the site identified as having

potential to support roosting bats. No bats were recorded emerging from this tree. Following the

emergence survey, a walked transect of the entire site was undertaken, covering representative habitats

and linear features. The walked transect route is provided in Figure 5-6. Bats were recorded feeding along

treelines and hedgerows for much of the dusk survey. Species recorded included Leisler’s bat, common

and soprano pipistrelle as well as a possible brown long-eared bat. Bat numbers within the site comprised

on small numbers of individual bats with a maximum of two bats recorded at any one time. The treelines

and hedgerows within and surrounding the site provide connectivity to the wider landscape surrounding

the site for bat species.

The habitats within and adjacent to the site were assessed for suitability for bats during the survey. There

were no buildings on site that had suitability for roosting bats. Trees identified as having potential to

support roosting bats were examined for cavities or crevices which could be suitable roost sites for bats. A

single oak tree was identified as having the potential to support small numbers of individual bats, see

Figure 5-6. Plate 4-10 provides an example of potentially suitable cavities identified within an oak tree

within the northwest of the site. This tree has been assessed as of low-moderate suitability, as per Collins,

2016 ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists Good Practice Guidelines’.

The site does provide suitable habitat for feeding and commuting bat species with hedgerows and

treelines providing connectivity to the surrounding landscape.


MAP TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE:


MAP NO.:

ISSUE NO.:

SCALE:

DATE:


DMN PR09-09-2019

1:3,500

180816a-2019.09.09-D

Figure 5.6Bat transect and potential tree roost180816 Barrett - Cornamagh Athlone


Bat Transect Route

Tree with some potential to supportroosting bats


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-37

Plate 5-10 Oak tree within the northwest of the site providing potentially suitable roosting cavities for bat species.

5.4.5.3 Badger

The site was searched for signs of badger (Meles meles) during the walk over survey. Evidence of badger

was recorded during the walkover survey including a badger sett (comprising of a three active entrances),

foraging signs, prints and the presence of runs between hedgerows.

The badger sett was recorded within a mature treeline within the central section of the site (Plate 5-11).

The location of the sett is shown in Confidential Appendix 5-27

. The sett had three entrances and lacked

defined paths connecting it to a main sett. A small spoil heap was noted outside the entrances and the

entrance was clear of debris suggesting that the sett is in regular use. The surrounding hedgerows and bog

woodland was searched for the presence of other setts although no other setts were recorded.

The sett has been classified as an outlier sett, as per guidance in Small, 1995. The sett entrance and

surrounding habitat is likely to be used by the local badger population as a non-primary area with a main

sett located elsewhere in the surrounding area. No main sett was recorded within the study area despite a

thorough search of the site. As the site of the proposed development is located at the edge of the urban

area of Athlone, with the built environment located to the east, south and west, it is highly likely that the

sett is an outlier at the edge of a wider Badger territory that is centred in the area of farmland to the north.

Plate 5.11: Outlier badger sett recorded within the site.

5.4.5.4 Otter

A comprehensive search of the drainage ditch located within the site and along the site boundaries was

undertaken for otter. No signs of otter, including holts, slides, prints or spraints were recorded. The

drainage ditch located within the site is not of ecological value to a local otter population as it is shallow

with minimal flow. However, the drainage ditch on site does provide surface water connectivity to

7 The location is confidential to ensure the protection of the species and this process is in accordance with standard best practice.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-38

downstream watercourses likely to be used by otter, including Lough Ree SAC located approximately

1.2km (surface water distance) downstream.

5.4.5.5 Other fauna

Although no signs of other mammal species were recorded, species such as fox (Vulpes vulpes) and

pygmy shrew (Sorex minutus) are likely to utilise the site, at least on occasion.

No significant areas of suitable habitat for other taxa including invertebrates or amphibians, species listed

in Annex II or IV of the EU Habitats Directive, or other species of conservation concern was identified

within the boundaries of the proposed development site. The drainage ditch recorded to the northwest of

the site does not provide significant areas of suitable breeding sites for amphibious species such as

common frog. For this reason, no other mammal, invertebrate or amphibian species have been

considered as a sensitive ecological receptor.

5.4.6 Significance of the Fauna

The field surveys carried out on the 16th November 2018 and 14th of May 2019 found that badger and

bat species were the only protected species recorded within the site boundary. No evidence of any other

protected faunal species or other species of conservation concern was recorded within the site boundary.

No rare species recorded in the desk study, including those obtained from NPWS data request (see

Table 5-7), were recorded within the study area. This section attributes the significance of each of the

species recorded within the site of the proposed development in accordance with best practice guidance

(NRA, 2009).

Based on the findings of the desk study and the site visit surveys, the species recorded within the site and

the nature of the habitats recorded on site, the development boundary does not provide significant

suitable habitat for protected species other than badger, with an active sett recorded within the site

boundary. Due to the occurrence of a badger sett within the site, badger have been of local importance

(higher value) as the species is protected under the Wildlife Act. However, the species is considered as

common and widespread in Ireland and are of ‘Least concern’ in terms of their conservation status

(Marnell et al, 2009).

Based on the absence of otter records for the site and the low suitability of the aquatic habitats to support

fish species, otter has been assessed as of local importance (lower value) and has not been identified as a

sensitive ecological receptor within the site. However, potential for water pollution, downstream of the

site, has the potential to impact this species. For this reason, further consideration has been given to the

protection of watercourses both within and downstream of the proposed development site.

Bat species have been assessed as of Local importance (higher value) as they are of high local biodiversity

value. Although no roosts were recorded within the site during the survey, a mature oak tree was

identified as having the potential to support small numbers of roosting bats. From a precautionary

perspective, and due to the nature of the proposed development involving some treeline and hedgerow

removal, potential for impacts on bat species is the subject of assessment in Section 5.5 from a

precautionary perspective.

None of the bird species recorded within the site during the site visit are Red listed under the Birds of

Conservation Concern in Ireland (BoCCI) or in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive and habitat on site

comprises semi-improved agricultural grassland, which is common in the surrounding area. However,

there is a network of tree lines and hedgerows that provide suitable habitat for a range of common

passerine species with a high biodiversity value in a local context. Bird species have been identified as of

local importance (Higher value) on this basis although the species recorded are common and widespread.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-39

5.5 Ecological Impact Assessment Following the desk study and detailed ecological surveys undertaken on site, this section of the report

considers the potential for impact on the sensitive ecological receptors that were identified and that will be

subject to impact as a result of the proposed development. The impacts on each sensitive ecological

receptor is considered during all stages of the proposed development, namely; construction, operation

and decommissioning. The do-nothing scenario – i.e. the existing trends of the receiving environment in

the absence of the proposed housing development is also considered.

5.5.1 Do Nothing Impact

If the proposed development were not to go ahead, it is likely that the site would remain in its current use;

an operational agricultural grassland grazed by livestock.

5.5.2 Impacts During Construction Phase

5.5.2.1 Impacts on Habitats

The development footprint, associated landscaping and amenity areas will affect the majority of the lands

within the red line boundary, see Figure 5-5. There will be a loss of 11.28 ha of Dry meadows and grassy

verges (GS2), assessed as of local importance (lower value). The loss of this habitat to the footprint of the

proposed development is assessed as a permanent negative effect and is not significant at any geographic

scale as the habitat has a relatively low biodiversity value and is widespread in the local and wider area.

Potential for impact on these habitats of local importance (lower value) have therefore not been identified

as Key Ecological Receptors (KERs) and are thus not considered further in this report. The loss of these

habitats is considered to be a long-term not significant negative impact at any geographic scale.

The development footprint is situated within habitats dominated by Dry meadows and grassy verges

(GS2) and Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1), a small area of Bog woodland and linear strips of

Hedgerows (WL1) and Treelines (WL2) of local importance (higher value). Potential for impact on these

habitats is considered further in the following subsections.

These habitats of local importance (higher value) have been identified as Key Ecological Receptors

(KERs) as the loss of habitat has been identified as a long-term negative impact at a local (higher)

geographic scale. The following subsections consider potential for impact on these habitats during the

construction phase of the proposed development.

Assessment of Potential Impacts on Treeline and Hedgerow Habitat Table 5-12. Assessment of Impact on Treeline and Hedgerow Habitat

Description of

Effect

The site, including site boundaries, contains approximately 1,400 metres of hedgerow

habitat. Approximately 500 metres of hedgerows habitat occurring within the centre of the

site will be lost to facilitate the proposed project footprint. The remainder of the hedgerow

habitat within the site will be retained and enhanced.

The site, including site boundaries, contains approximately 540 metres of treeline habitat.

Approximately 300 metres of treeline habitat, located within the south of the site and

identified as a townland boundary, will be removed to facilitate the proposed development.

Characterisation

of unmitigated

effect

The loss of 500m of hedgerow would constitute a permanent negative effect on

approximately 35% of the hedgerow habitat within the site/site boundary. This would not be

reversible as it is within the construction footprint.

The removal of 300 metres of treeline would constitute a negative effect on approximately

55% of the tree line habitat on the site. This effect is reversible as although the tree line will

be lost, this is only to facilitate a change in levels on the site and it can be replaced in its

original location.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-40

Assessment of Potential Impacts on Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1) Habitat Table 5-13. Loss of Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1) Habitat

Assessment of

Significance

prior to

mitigation

The loss of 500m of hedgerow habitat and approximately 300 metres of treeline habitat

represents a loss of approximately 41% of this locally important habitat within the site.

This is not considered to be a significant effect at anything other than local geographic scale

as the habitat is widespread and common in the wider area outside the site.

Mitigation The tree line to be lost will be replaced in full in the same location following the alteration to

ground levels necessary to prepare the site for development. Native tree species will be

planted in this tree line.

It is proposed to plant an additional 220 metres of new native hedgerow habitat along the

western boundary of the site currently comprising of block wall, dividing the site from

neighbouring housing estates to the west, see drawing 19143-1-100 ‘Landscape Master Plan’.

There will therefore reduce the net loss of hedgerow habitat associated with the proposed

project to approximately 280 metres and will improve habitat connectivity at the perimeter of

the site.

The design of the proposed project has resulted in the retention of the existing hedgerow and

treeline habitat occurring along the site boundary. These boundary hedgerows will be

enhanced using supplementary planting of native Irish species as part of the Landscape

Management Plan, (Cunnane Stratton Reynolds, 2019). The Landscape Master Plan also

provides details on the composition and management of the proposed tree species.

Approximately 300 metres of treeline habitat located within the south of the site, identified as

a townland boundary, will be lost during the site regrading works due to the undulating

topography on site. However, this will be immediately reinstated using a mix of similar native

tree species, as described in the Landscape Management Plan (see drawing 19143-1-100).

This was incorporated into the proposed development in consideration of the Westmeath

County Development Plan policy P-TWH5 which promotes the retention of townland

boundaries. Drawing 19143-1-100 ‘Landscape Master Plan’ also shows tree root protection

areas. This will ensure that any trees or tree lines that are to be retained within the site are

fully protected in accordance with the British Standard BS 5837: Trees in Relation to

Construction.

Residual Effect

following

Mitigation

Following the implementation of the mitigation as described above, there will be a permanent

residual loss of 280m of hedgerow habitat, with no net loss of tree line. The enhancement of

the perimeter hedgerows and tree lines will improve habitat connectivity around the site.

There is no significant residual effect on hedgerows and treelines resulting from the

proposed development.

Potential for

Cumulative

Effect

The proposed development will not result in any significant effect on hedgerows or treelines

and will result in improved habitat connectivity surrounding the site. It therefore cannot

contribute to any cumulative effect in this regard.

Description of

Effect

There will be a loss of 2.9 ha of Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1), assessed as of

local importance (higher value). Due to the layout of the proposed development, all of this

habitat within the site boundary will be lost to the development footprint.

Characterisation

of unmitigated

effect

The loss of 2.9ha of Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1) would constitute a

permanent negative effect on the habitat within the site boundary. This would not be

reversible as it is within the construction footprint.

Assessment of

Significance

prior to

mitigation

The loss of this small area of grassland habitat will not affect the conservation status of this

habitat is widespread and common the wider landscape. However, it is considered locally

significant in the context of biodiversity within the site. The loss of this semi-improved

agricultural grassland is not significant at other geographic scale.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-41

Assessment of Potential Impacts on Bog Woodland Table 5-14 Loss of Bog Woodland Habitat

8 OCSC, 2020, Engineering Services Report, Residential Development at Coosan, Athlone

Mitigation The proposed development has been designed to include approximately three hectares of

green open space providing a linear strip throughout the centre of the site. This green area

includes the planting of clumps of native trees, the provision of wetlands (including wet

grassland) and the planting of native wildflower meadows scattered throughout the amenity

space. Drawing B907-OCSC-XX-XX-DR-C-0522, of the Engineering Services Report

(OCSC, 20208

), submitted as part of the planning application documentation, provides the

design cross section details of this wetland. The proposed feature wetland has been designed

in accordance with the requirements of CIRIA C753 (SuDS. Manual) included in Appendix

I of the OCSC (2020) engineering services report.

Plate 5-1 Cross Section of Wetland (Excerpt from Design Drawing B907-OCSC-XX-XX-DR-C-0522)

In order to create wildflower meadows within the site, top soil stripped from the most

southerly field within the site (comprising Dry calcareous and neutral grassland) will be stored

on site for reuse in the site landscaping of the site, particularly the areas identified for semi-

natural grassland creation, see drawing 19143-1-100. This will contain a natural seedbank

facilitating a natural revegetation of local plant assemblages. If additional seeding is required

for revegetation of grassland habitats within the site, the recommended species mix to be

sown is “Native Origin Irish Wildflower Seed Mixture: Range: Meadow Mixtures (Code

MM)” (Wildflowers, 2020). This will ensure higher biodiversity value of the semi-natural and

amenity grasslands within the site. Detailed measures for the establishment and long-term

management of this semi-natural grassland meadow and wet grassland habitat is described in

Section 2 of the Landscape Master Plan.

A biodiversity management plan will be developed for the management of the created

wetlands, trees and grasslands throughout the site. This will include details of the associated

roles and responsibilities for the management and monitoring of the biodiversity within the

site.

Residual Effect

following

Mitigation

Following the implementation of the mitigation as described above, there will be no

significant effect on the biodiversity value of the semi- natural habitats within the site at any

geographic scale.

Potential for

Cumulative

Effect

The proposed development will not result in any significant effect on the semi-natural

habitats within the site. It therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in this regard.

Description of

Effect

There will be a loss of 0.19 ha of Bog woodland (WN7) habitat identified as of local

importance (higher value). This habitat is located within the northwest of the site and will be

lost as a result of the installation of the proposed site access road.

Characterisation

of unmitigated

effect

The loss of this habitat has been assessed as a permanent slight negative effect. This would

not be reversible as it is within the construction footprint.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-42

5.5.2.2 Impacts on Fauna

Faunal species recorded within the proposed development boundary have widespread and favourable

ranges in Ireland and alternative suitable habitat is widespread in the wider area. Therefore, impacts on

fauna as a result of disturbance/ displacement are short-term not significant negative impacts.

No suitable breeding or foraging habitats for mammal species of conservation concern such as otter were

identified within the proposed development site.

Supplementary hedgerows and treeline planting as well as the creation of areas of semi-natural grassland

habitat as part of the proposed landscape management plan (see drawing 18223-3-100) will ensure that

connectivity is maintained for a variety of commuting and feeding faunal species of local (lower)

biodiversity value. Therefore, impacts on faunal species of local importance (lower value) are not

identified as Key Ecological Receptors (KERs). No significant effects on these species are anticipated.

The following faunal species have been identified as KERs for further assessment in the following

subsections: Badger

Bats

Birds

Assessment of Potential Impacts on Badger Table 5-15 Assessment of Potential Impacts on Badger

Assessment of

Significance

prior to

mitigation

The unmitigated impact resulting in the loss of this habitat is a permanent slight negative

impact and is not considered to be a significant negative effect as the habitat is widespread

and common in the wider landscape.

Mitigation As described above, the proposed development has been designed to include approximately

3 hectares of green space. This includes the retention of 0.1ha of this bog woodland and the

creation of wetland habitats surrounding the woodland and the planting of groups of native

trees and hedges around the site. The area of woodland to be retained will also be subject to

a specific maintenance measures outlined in Section 2.8 of the Landscape Management Plan

(Cunnane Stratton Reynolds, 2019). This will also form part of the biodiversity management

plan.

Residual Effect

following

Mitigation

Following the mitigation described above, the loss of a small area of bog woodland associated

with the construction phase of the proposed project is not considered to be significant at any

geographic scale and the development of surrounding wetlands has the potential to result in a

positive effect on biodiversity. There will be no significant residual effect on this habitat at any

greater than a very local (higher) geographic scale as a result of this development.

Potential for

Cumulative

Effect

The proposed development will not result in any significant effect on biodiversity associated

with the bog woodland. It therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in this regard.

Description of

Effect

Habitat Loss

The footprint of the proposal will result in the loss of a known outlier badger sett

comprising three entrances and associated foraging habitat.

Habitat Fragmentation

As the proposed project is bordered to the south and west by existing housing estates on

two sides (south and west) and a sports ground to the southeast. It is highly likely that this

outlier badger sett is located at the very edge of a badger territory that is located in the


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-43

agricultural fields to the north. As such, it is highly unlikely that there will be any

significant fragmentation of habitat associated with the proposed development.

Disturbance/Displacement

The loss of an outlier badger sett to the footprint of the proposed project may result in

the displacement of badgers from this sett and could result in direct mortality in the

absence of mitigation.

Characterisation

of unmitigated

effect

Habitat Loss

The loss of a badger sett and associated foraging habitat to the footprint of the proposed

development constitutes a permanent slight negative effect on the local badger population

given that the sett has been identified as an outlier sett and is likely to be located at the

edge of a territory given the close proximity to the surrounding urban developments to

the south, east and west. This would not be reversible as it is within the construction

footprint.

Fragmentation

As there will be no significant fragmentation of badger foraging habitat, given the

developed nature of the southern and western boundaries of the site, impacts associated

with the development are thereby restricted to habitat loss.


If the identified outlier badger sett were to be closed in the absence of mitigation, this

could result in mortality. This could constitute a permanent negative effect on a small

number of individuals using the site. In addition, construction works in close proximity to

the sett could prevent badgers from occupying the sett.

Assessment of

Significance

prior to

mitigation

Habitat Loss

The loss of an outlier badger sett and associated foraging habitat is not significant at a

county, national or international scale as it will not affect the conservation status of this

species, which is widespread and common in the wider area outside the site. However, it

could result in a slight effect on the local badger population through the loss of an outlier

sett and associated habitat.

Fragmentation

Habitat fragmentation is not considered significant at any geographic scale given the

location of the proposed development at the very edge of a potential badger territory,

close to nearby existing housing estates to the south and west of the site.


The loss of this outlier badger sett is not significant at a county, national or international

scale as it will not affect the conservation status of this species, which is widespread and

common in the wider area outside the site. However, it is considered significant at a local

geographic scale and could result in the mortality of individuals in the absence of

mitigation.

Mitigation Habitat Loss

No mitigation is proposed for the loss of the outlier sett. However, the proposed

development includes the provision of approximately 3 three hectares of green space

with the planting of native tree species and wildflower meadows. This area will provide a

connection to the farm lands to the north and access by badger for foraging will be

retained.

Fragmentation


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-44

No specific mitigation is proposed in relation to fragmentation as no potential for

significant effect was identified.


Due to the occurrence of an outlier badger sett within the proposed development

footprint, in the absence of mitigation, there is potential for direct mortality of badger

during the construction phase of the proposed development. The following approach for

the avoidance of disturbance/ mortality will be implemented: Prior to the commencement of any site works, a badger sett closure licence will be

sought from the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

A period of sett monitoring will be undertaken at all sett entrances by remote infra-red

cameras for a period of 2 weeks (minimum) to determine if the sett is active and the

number of individuals present.

An exclusion zone around the sett will be maintained until the sett is closed. No heavy

machinery will be used within 30m of the sett and no light machinery within 20m.

Following best practice, the closure of badger sett entrances will be undertaken outside of

the badger breeding season (December to June). Works may proceed during the

breeding season following the successful closure of the sett entrances.

In order to close each sett entrance, a one-way badger gate (or a similar device) will be

installed at each sett entrance (TII, 2005). The gates will be soft blocked with stones after

their installation and will be monitored for a 21-day period for signs of activity. Where

no activity take place, further stones or similar materials will be used to reinforce the

closure of the sett entrance.

.

All of the above works will be undertaken or supervised by an appropriately qualified

ecologist.

In addition to the above, to protect individual badgers during the construction phase of

the proposed development, all open excavations on site will be covered when not in use

and backfilled as soon as possible. Excavations will also be covered at night and any deep

excavations left open will have appropriate egress ramps in place to allow mammals to

safely exit excavations should they fall in.

Residual Effect

following

Mitigation

Habitat Loss

The loss of an outlier badger sett and associated foraging habitat at the edge of the

territory of the local badger population is not considered significant at anything other

than the local scale. It has the potential to have a slight effect on the local population but

will not affect the conservation status of this species, which is widespread and common in

the wider area outside the site.

Fragmentation

As there will be no significant fragmentation of badger foraging habitat, given the

developed nature of the southern and western boundaries of the site, impacts associated

with the development are thereby restricted to habitat loss. There is therefore no

potential for significant effect at any geographic scale as a result of habitat fragmentation.

Disturbance

Following the implementation of the mitigation as described above, there is no potential

for any significant effect on badger as a result of disturbance, displacement or mortality.

Potential for

Cumulative

Effect

Habitat Loss

As habitat loss has been identified as a slight effect at a local geographic scale, it therefore

could potentially contribute to a cumulative effect in this regard and is considered further

in Section 5.6.

Fragmentation

As no potential for significant effect has been identified at any geographic scale as a result

of habitat fragmentation, it therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in this

regard.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-45

Assessment of Potential Impacts on Bats Table 5-16 Assessment of Potential Impacts on Bats

Disturbance

There will be no significant residual effect at any geographic scale, it therefore cannot

contribute to any potential cumulative effect in this regard.

Description of

Effect

Habitat Loss

The proposed development will result in the loss of hedgerow and tree line habitat that is used

by foraging bats. It will also result in the loss of a single tree with the potential to support a bat

roost. The site, including site boundaries, contains approximately 540 metres of treeline

habitat. Approximately 300 metres of treeline habitat located within the south of the site,

identified as a townland boundary, will be lost during the site regrading works due to the

undulating topography on site. Such loss of linear habitats, in the absence of mitigation, has

the potential to impact commuting and foraging bat species locally.

Habitat Fragmentation

The loss of hedgerows and tree line habitat has the potential to fragment bat foraging habitat

and to reduce connectivity to such habitat in the wider area


The proposed development has the potential to result in disturbance and displacement

effects on bats in the form of lighting of tree lines. Whilst no bat roosts were recorded, there

is also the potential for displacement of bats from suitable habitat in a single oak tree that will

be lost in the north western section of the site. The felling of this tree could potentially lead

to direct mortality of bats

Characterisation

of unmitigated

effect

Habitat Loss

Given the low levels of activity recorded and that the majority of foraging habitat on the site

will be retained, the potential for effects on bats is considered to be slight.

No bat roosts were recorded on the site and only one tree was considered to have potential

to support roosting bats. However, the features identified within the tree are unlikely to

support significant numbers of bats and the likelihood of there being a roost present at all is

slight. The proposed development will also result in the loss of a mature oak tree identified

as having potential to support rousing bats (although none were recorded during a dedicated

roost emergence survey of this tree on the 14th of May 2019). The unmitigated impact of this

feature could result in a permanent slight negative impact.

Fragmentation

The proposed development has been designed to retain as much hedgerow and tree line

habitat as possible and will retain the majority of the perimeter habitats, thus ensuring that

any loss of habitat connectivity associated with areas outside the site is minimised. The effect

of losing linear features within the interior of the site will be minimal as connectivity will be

retained at the edges of the site.


The proposed development will provide external lighting that could potentially lead to some

low-level disturbance of bat species. However, imperceptible disturbance of bats is

anticipated.

The loss of a mature oak tree with the potential to support small numbers of roosting bats

locally (although none were recorded using the tree during a dedicated roost emergence

survey of this tree on the 14th of May 2019) could result in mortality associated with the

construction phase of the proposed project, due to the felling of this tree.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-46

Assessment of

Significance

prior to

mitigation

Habitat Loss

No significant loss of bat roosting or foraging habitat is anticipated at any geographic scale.

Fragmentation

No significant fragmentation of bat roosting, commuting or foraging habitat is anticipated at

any geographic scale.


No significant disturbance to bats is anticipated at any geographic scale. The potential for

direct mortality of bats following the felling of the single tree with the potential to support

roosting bats would be significant at the local scale but is highly unlikely to occur.

Mitigation Habitat Loss

Habitat loss has been identified as a not significant impact. This has been minimised through

the design phase of the project in consultation with the project ecologist and landscape

architect. This has resulted in the retention of hedgerow and treeline features including the

enhancement, replacement and establishment of new linear features and the provision of a

large area of greenspace with created wetlands, woodlands, wildflower meadows and tree

lines and clumps of trees. These are shown in the landscaping master plan, see drawing

19143-1-100 ‘Landscape Master Plan’ (Cunnane Stratton Reynolds, 2019). This will ensure

that feeding and commuting habitat is maintained for bat species locally. Bat boxes will be

erected on the trees to be retained to enhance roosting habitats on the site.

Fragmentation

Habitat fragmentation has been identified as a not significant impact. As described above, the

proposed project has been designed to maintain linear treeline and hedgerow features

surrounding perimeter of the site. These are shown in the landscaping master plan, see

drawing 19143-1-100 ‘Landscape Master Plan’ (Cunnane Stratton Reynolds, 2019). This will

ensure connectivity is maintained to the wider environment for commuting bats locally, both

through and around the proposed development. In addition, habitat connectivity throughout

the centre of the site will be enhanced through tree planting, wetland creation and the

planting of wild flower meadows.


A mature oak tree to be removed as part of the proposed project was identified as having

potential to support small numbers of individual roosting bats. Following the precautionary

principle this tree will be inspected prior to the commencement of construction works to

identify if a roost is present.

If no bats are recorded within the tree, it will be left undisturbed for a period of 24 hours,

and preferably 48 hours. This will allow any bats that may be present to escape. In the

unlikely event that bats are recorded roosting within this tree, there may be a requirement for

a derogation licence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).

The lighting associated with the proposed development is designed to avoid light spillage and

will not be focussed onto areas of ecological sensitivity such as the hedgerows, treelines,

wetlands or tree planting areas.

Residual Effect

following

Mitigation

Habitat Loss

Following the incorporation of mitigation measures described above, no significant loss of bat

habitat is identified.

Fragmentation

Following the incorporation of mitigation measures described above, no significant

fragmentation of bat habitat is identified.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-47

Assessment of Potential Impacts on Birds Table 5-17. Assessment of impacts on birds associated with the construction phase of the proposed project.


Following the incorporation of mitigation measures described above, no significant

disturbance/displacement of bats is identified

Potential for

Cumulative

Effect

Habitat Loss

There is no significant loss of bat habitat associated with the proposed development. It

therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in this regard.

Fragmentation

There is no significant effect as a result of the fragmentation of bat habitat associated with the

proposed development. It therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in this regard.

Disturbance

There will be no significant disturbance to bat species as a result of the proposed

development. It therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in this regard.

Description of

Effect

Habitat Loss/fragmentation

The footprint of the proposal will result in the loss of agricultural grassland, tree lines

hedgerows that provide habitat for a range of common and widespread bird species.


The construction phase of the proposed project has the potential to cause disturbance to

local bird species, potentially leading to avoidance of the area. In addition, if site clearance is

undertaken during the bird nesting season, it could lead to the destruction or disturbance of

nests.

Characterisation

of unmitigated

effect

Habitat Loss/fragmentation

The loss of bird nesting habitat constitutes a permanent slight negative effect as these habitats

are common and widespread in the wider area.


In the absence of mitigation, there is potential for slight temporary negative effect on local

bird species associated with the construction phase of the proposed development as the site

does not provide significant habitat for bird species of conservation concern.

Assessment of

Significance

prior to

mitigation

Habitat Loss

The unmitigated impact resulting in the loss of foraging and commuting habitat for bird

species is not significant as the habitats to be lost are common and widespread in the local

area and do not support significant habitat for protected bird species.


In the absence of mitigation, there is potential for loss individual birds nests within the site of

the proposed development. Whilst this would be a significant effect on the individual nests

involved, it would not result on a significant effect on the populations of the species involved

in terms of their conservation status.

Habitat Loss


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-48

5.5.2.3 Assessment of Impacts on Water Quality Table 5-18 Consideration of impacts on water quality

Mitigation The design of the proposed development includes measures to replant and enhance tree line

and hedgerow habitat on the site along with wetlands, wild flower meadows and planted trees.

A biodiversity management plan will be provided and will include the provision, maintenance

and monitoring of bird boxes throughout the site.


Site clearance will be undertaken outside of the nesting bird season (1st

March – 31st

August)

to ensure compliance with the Wildlife Act. If vegetation clearance is required during the

nesting bird season, this will be preceded by a nesting bird survey and all clearance works

supervised by an appropriately qualified ecologist. isturbance/Displacement

Residual Effect

following

Mitigation

Habitat Loss

Following the incorporation of mitigation listed above, habitat loss is not considered to be

significant at any geographic scale. There is potential for biodiversity net gain in relation to

birds.


Following the implementation of the mitigation as described above, there will be no

significant residual effect at any geographic scale. Disturbance/Displacement

Potential for

Cumulative

Effect

Habitat Loss

The proposed development has the potential to result in a positive effect on bird species

through biodiversity management. It therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in

this regard.


No significant effects as a result of habitat disturbance/displacement associated with the

proposed development are predicted. It therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect

in this regard. sturbance/ displacement

Description of

Effect

The construction of the development will involve earth moving and levelling operations

which create the potential for pollution in various forms and there is therefore potential for

impact on downstream water quality. The development will also include the culverting of an

existing drain within the site and the construction of a surface water outfall to a drain that is

located at the north western boundary of the site.

Characterisation

of unmitigated

effect

The deterioration in downstream surface water quality would constitute a reversible negative

effect. Given the small scale of the existing drainage ditch occurring on site, impacts on water

quality are unlikely to result in anything other than slight effects on sensitive ecological

receptors downstream such as Lough Ree and ultimately the River Shannon.

Assessment of

Significance

prior to

mitigation

There is unlikely to be any significant negative effects on any sensitive ecological receptors

given the nature of the drainage ditch, the nature of the works and the location of the site

(removed from ecologically sensitive waterbodies).

Mitigation A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been prepared for the

proposed development (MKO, 2020) and has been submitted as part of the planning

application documentation. This CEMP includes best practice environmental control

measures for the avoidance of deterioration in water quality and will be implemented in full

during the construction phase of the proposed development. In addition, Section 7.4.2 of the


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-49

5.5.3 Impacts During the Operational Phase

5.5.3.1 Impacts on Habitats

There will be no loss or fragmentation of habitats during the operational phase of the proposed

development. All habitat loss will occur during construction. As such, no negative effects on habitats are

predicted during the operation of this residential development.

The proposed development has been designed to include approximately three hectares of green open

space providing a linear strip throughout the centre of the site. This green area includes the planting of

clumps of native trees, the provision of wetlands (including wet grassland) and the planting of native wild

flower meadows scattered throughout the amenity space.

hydrology chapter (Chapter 7 of the EIAR) prescribes standard best practice mitigation

measures for the avoidance of impact on water quality. Together with the CEMP, the

following is a summary of the measures incorporated into the construction phase of the

proposed development for the avoidance of water pollution:

Management of surface water runoff and subsequent treatment prior to release off-site will be

undertaken during construction work as follows:

At the outset of construction, the existing drain within the site will be culverted.

This will be undertaken during low flow and any flows within the channel will be

overpumped from upstream to downstream, leaving the work area dry. The

pumped water will be released into a silt bag within the drain.

The construction of the surface water discharge point will similarly be undertaken

in dry conditions with damming and overpumping employed as necessary.

As construction advances there may be a small requirement to collect and treat

surface water within the site. This will be completed using perimeter swales at low

points around the construction areas, and if required water will be pumped from

the swales into sediment bags prior to overland discharge allowing water to

percolate naturally to ground or disperse by diffuse flow into local drainage ditches;

Discharge onto ground will be via a silt bag which will filter any remaining sediment

from the pumped water. The entire discharge area from silt bags will be enclosed

by a perimeter of double silt fencing;

Any proposed discharge area will avoid potential surface water ponding areas, and

will only be located where suitable subsoils are present;

No pumped construction water will be discharged directly into any local

watercourse;

Daily monitoring and inspections of site drainage during construction will be

completed;

Earthworks will take place during periods of low rainfall to reduce run-off and

potential siltation of watercourses;

Good construction practices such wheel washers and dust suppression on site

roads, and regular plant maintenance will ensure minimal risk. The Construction

Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) provide guidance on the

control and management of water pollution from construction sites ('Control of

Water Pollution from Construction Sites, guidance for consultants and

contractors', CIRlA, 2001), which provides information on these issues. This will

ensure that surface water arising during the course of construction activities will

contain minimum sediment.

Residual Effect

following

Mitigation

As described in Section 7.4.2.1, Chapter 7 of the EIAR, ‘No significant impacts on surface water quality are expected due to site excavation work. There is limited hydraulic connectivity

between the site and watercourses and mitigation measures will be employed on a precautionary basis’. Subject to the implementation of the measures described in the

hydrological report and the CEMP, blocking all pollution pathways, impacts on downstream

ecologically sensitive receptors is not anticipated. There will therefore be no significant

impact on water quality as a result of the proposed development at any geographic scale.

Potential for

Cumulative

Effect

The proposed development will not result in any permanent or long-term deterioration in

water quality and it is not considered significant at any geographic scale. It therefore cannot

contribute to any cumulative effect in this regard.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-50

A biodiversity management plan will be developed for the management of the created wetlands, trees and

grasslands throughout the site. This will include details of the associated roles and responsibilities for the

management and monitoring of the biodiversity within the site. There is the potential for the proposed

development to result in a positive effect on habitats on site.

5.5.3.2 Impacts on Faunal Species

As the operation of the proposed development will not result in any additional loss of habitat and will

actually include measures to improve the biodiversity value of the site (as described in the previous

section). No significant effects in terms of habitat loss and fragmentation are anticipated. The biodiversity

management plan provides for additional habitat for bird and bat species in the form of bird and bat

boxes along with the planting of trees and creation of wetland habitats.

The proposed development will include some external lighting. However, this will be designed to avoid

light spillage and will be focussed away from areas of ecological sensitivity such as the tree lines,

hedgerows and the wetlands within the site.

No significant negative effects on any faunal receptors are anticipated as a result of this development.

5.5.3.3 Impacts on Water quality Table 5-19. Consideration of impacts on water quality during the operational phase of the proposed project

5.5.4 Decommissioning Phase

The proposed development is considered to be permanent and thus there will be no decommissioning

works associated with the proposed development. Any demolition or maintenance works on the site

Description of

Effect

In the absence of best practice design measures, surface water and wastewater generated on

site has the potential to result in water pollution of downstream surface water receptors.

Surface water generated on the site will be discharged to the drainage ditch that is located at

the northwest corner of the site. Foul water will be connected to the public sewer network.

Characterisation

of unmitigated

effect

The deterioration in downstream surface water quality would constitute a long term,

reversible negative effect on downstream water quality. Given the nature of the development,

the small size of the receiving watercourse and the location of the sensitive ecological

waterbodies downstream, any potential effect is likely to be slight in magnitude.

Assessment of

Significance

prior to

mitigation

No significant effects on receptors of international (Lough Ree SAC), national or county

importance that may be located downstream are anticipated. Any effect on the watercourses

in the local area is likely to be slight and potentially significant at the local scale only.

Mitigation As described in Section 2.2, all foul water will be connected to the public foul water sewer.

All freshwater will be connected to the public water mains infrastructure as detailed in

drawing 10402-2000. Surface water runoff from the proposed development will be directed

to an appropriately designed water attenuation ponds and attenuation tanks (see Section 2.1).

All surface water runoff from the trafficked areas will pass through a petrol interceptor prior

to discharge (see drawing 10402-1000). Given the absence of pollution pathways impacts on

ecologically sensitive receptors are not anticipated.

Residual Effect

following

Mitigation

The proposed development will not affect the hydrological regime within the area. As fully

described in Section 7.4.3, Chapter 7 of the EIAR, ‘No significant impacts in terms of

flooding or water quality are expected due to the proposed development’. Following the

incorporation of the above mitigation/design, there will be no significant impact on water

quality as a result of the proposed development at any geographic scale.

Potential for

Cumulative

Effect

The proposed development will not result in any significant water quality impacts and is not

significant at any geographic scale. It therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in

this regard.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-51

would be likely to have similar impacts in terms of disturbance to those associated with the construction

phase of the project as detailed in previous sections.

5.5.5 Impacts on Designated Sites

5.5.5.1 European Sites

Potential impacts on European Designated Sites (SACs and SPAs) are assessed within a separate

Screening for Appropriate Assessment report and Natura Impact Statement. The NIS states that:

“it can be objectively concluded that the Proposed Development, individually or in combination

with other plans or projects, will not adversely affect the integrity of any European Site”.

5.5.5.2 Nationally Designated Sites

All nationally designated sites were considered in this assessment. Any NHAs or pNHAs that were also

designated as SACs/SPAs were considered and assessed under that designation. There was no identified

pathway for effect on any nationally designated site that was not also designated as a European Site. The

closest site of nature conservation value to the proposed development is the Lough Ree pNHA, located

to the north of the proposed development site. A small drainage ditch located within the site of the

proposed development provides surface water connectivity with the pNHA in excess of 1.2km

downstream. As described above, impact on this site is considered and assessed under Lough Ree SAC.

The nearest NHA, Carrickynaghtan Bog NHA, is situated 4.2km to the southwest of the site. However,

no surface water connectivity has been identified between the proposed development and any NHAs

within the likely zone of influence.

5.6 Cumulative Impacts

5.6.1 Other Projects

The proposed development was considered in combination with other plans and projects in the area that

could result in cumulative impacts on European Sites, Nationally designated sites and protected species.

Existing trends in the surrounding environment have been considered following a review of historic maps

and orthophotography. The surrounding environment has been subject to significant housing

development including nearby housing estates; Churchfields, The Glen, Church Hills Cresent, Coolevin

Park, Coosan Heath and Churchwood all constructed since 1995. In addition, there has been associated

road development, including the N6 to the south of the site. The agricultural landscape in the wider area

also appears to have continued to be subject to agricultural improvement, and in a small number of cases

abandonment. There is little data to establish trends for faunal and protected plant species locally.

However, the loss of semi-natural habitats locally is likely to have had some effects on biodiversity locally.

The online planning system for Westmeath County Council, was consulted on the 06/06/2020. Projects

Considered in the Cumulative Assessment are described below. The comprehensive review of the

Westmeath County Council planning register documented relevant general development planning

applications within the vicinity of the proposed works, most of which relate to the provision and/or

alteration of dwelling units. The following developments have been included in the context of the

cumulative assessment.

Residential Development – Clonbrusk, Coosan, Athlone – Pl. Ref 01811164

Kevin King applied to Westmeath County Council for planning permission for development of 31 no.

dwelling houses, connecting to public services, providing new site entrance and access roads including all

ancillary site works. Permission was granted by Westmeath County Council on the 30/12/2002 subject to

42 no. conditions. A third party appeal was lodged with An Bord Pleanála on the 02/09/2002 however

this was withdrawn on the 30/12/2002. The development commenced on the 14/07/2003. The site

adjoins the proposed development to the west.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

5-52

Residential Development – Clonbrusk, Coosan, Athlone – Pl. Ref 03811290

Regional Developments Ltd. applied to Westmeath County Council for planning permission for

development of 50 no. dwellings, 2 no. apartments and 1 no. creche including service roads, parking,

public open space and all associated site works. Permission was granted on the 15/07/2004 subject to 26

no. conditions. This development did not commence. The site adjoins the proposed development to

west.

Residential Development – Drumacon, Cornamaddy, Athlone– Pl. Ref 147103

Parana Properties Ltd. applied to Westmeath County Council for planning permission for 98 no. new

dwellings to include 11 4/5 bedroom detached houses, 28 no. 4/5 bed semi-detached houses, 8 no. 3

bedroom detached houses, 34 no. 3 bedroom semi-detached houses, 8 no. 2/3 bedroom terraced houses,

3 no. 2 bedroom houses and 6 no. 2 bedroom bungalow houses. The development is to include the

provision of all associated site development works including road networks, services, landscaping and

boundary treatments. Permission was granted on the 02/04/2015 subject to 17 no. conditions. A third

party appeal was submiited to An Bord Pleanála. Permission was granted on the 20/12/2002 subject to 9

no. amended conditions. The site is located approximately 600m to the east of the proposed

development.

Residential/Mixed use Development – Cornamaddy, Athlone – Pl. Ref 073123

McInerney Homes Ltd. applied to Westmeath County Council for 1 primary school, 184 no. residential

units, associated site works and landscaping to circa 10.4 ha. Permission was granted on the on the

01/05/2008 subject to 17 no. conditions. The site is located approximately 550m to the east of the

proposed site

Residential Development – Cornamaddy, Athlone – Pl. Ref 063087

McInerney Homes Ltd. applied to Westmeath County Council for 94 residential units, associated site

works and landscaping to circa 4.71 ha. Permission was granted on the on the 27/09/2006 subject to 35

no. conditions. A third party submission lodged with An Bord Pleanála was withdrawn on the

23/11/2006. The site is located approximately 540m north east from the proposed site.

Residential Development – Clonbrusk, Coosan Link Road, Athlone – Pl. Ref 073067

Mr. Ollie Kenny applied to Westmeath County Council to construct 83 no. residential units ancillary site

works and all associated site works. Permission was granted on the 24/01/2008 subject to 18 no.

conditions. A third party appeal was lodged and subsequently withdrawn with An Bord Pleanála on the

30/05/2008. The site is located approximately 520m south west of the proposed site.

5.6.2 County Development Plan

The following development plan has been reviewed and taken into consideration as part of this

assessment:

Westmeath County Development Plan 2014-2020

River Basin Management Plan for Ireland 2018–2021

The review focused on policies and objectives that relate to Natura 2000 sites. Policies and objectives

relating to the conservation of grasslands, waterbodies, sustainable land use were also reviewed,

particularly where the policies relate to the preservation of surface water quality. The results of this search

with regard to plans is provided in Table 5.24.


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

53

Table 5.24 Assessment of Plans

Plans Key Policies/Issues/Objectives Directly Related to European Sites in The Zone of Influence Assessment of Potential Effects on

European Sites

Westmeath County

Development Plan

2014-2020

P-NH2 To ensure as far as possible that development does not impact adversely on wildlife habitats and species. In

the interests of sustainability, biodiversity should be conserved for the benefit of future generations.

P-NH9 To consult with the National Parks and Wildlife Service in regard to any developments (those requiring

permission and those not requiring planning permission) which the Council propose to carry out within pNHAs,

NHAs, SACs, SPAs, and other important ecological sites.

P-NAT1 To protect and conserve wild bird species and their habitats, especially rare or vulnerable species and

regularly occurring migratory species.

P-NAT2 To protect and conserve Special Areas of Conservation, candidate Special Areas of Conservation, Special

Protection Areas and candidate Special Protection Areas, designated by the National Parks and Wildlife Service of

the Department of the Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives respectively.

P-NAT4 To assess any plan or project in accordance with Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, and assess whether the

Plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on the site either individually or cumulatively upon the integrity,

conservation objectives and qualifying interest of any Natura 2000 site.

P-TWH5 To protect hedgerows in all new developments, particularly species rich roadside and townland boundary

hedgerows.

The Development plan was comprehensively

reviewed, with particular reference to Policies and

Objectives that relate to the Natura 2000 network

and other natural heritage interests. No potential

for cumulative effects, considered in conjunction

with the proposed drainage, were identified.

Detailed ecological surveys have been

undertaken within the study area to provide

robust scientific data on which the findings of this

report rely.

The proposed onsite drainage has been designed

in order to avoid any potential for direct or

indirect impact on downstream sensitive

ecological receptors, EU or Nationally

Designated sites.

River Basin

Management Plan

for Ireland 2018 -

20219

The River Basin Management Plan for Ireland 2018-2021 sets out the actions that Ireland will take to improve water

quality and achieve ‘good’ ecological status in water bodies (rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters) by 2027. The

RBMP has been prepared under the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

The proposed onsite drainage has been designed

in order to avoid any potential for direct or

indirect impact on downstream waterbodies,

sensitive ecological receptors, EU or Nationally

Designated sites.

9 Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (2018), River Basin Management Plan for Ireland 2018-2021 [Online], Available at:

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/rbmp_report_english_web_version_final_0.pdf, Accessed 03/06/2020.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/rbmp_report_english_web_version_final_0.pdf


180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F

54

5.6.3 Conclusion of in-combination/cumulative assessment

Section 5.5.2.2.1 of the EIAR identified that the loss of an outlier badger sett and associated foraging

habitat could result in a slight residual effect that is significant at a local geographic scale only. Therefore,

the loss of this outlier badger sett and associated foraging habitat could potentially contribute to a

cumulative effect in combination with other projects. Following a review of the most recent developments

in the wider landscape and the Westmeath County Development Plan 2014-2020, the majority of

greenfield sites loss to development in the surrounding area has been associated with the infilling of gaps

among existing developments. This has also been restricted to the lands located to the south and west of

the site on the outskirts of Athlone town and in close proximity to existing housing developments. The

Athlone Town Development Plan 2014-2020 does not provide for further development to the north of

the proposed development site. It can therefore be concluded that there will be no significant in-

combination impact at any geographic scale as a result of habitat loss/displacement of badger associated

with the proposed development.

The proposed development will not result in any significant residual effects on any ecological receptors,

with the implementation of mitigation measures described in Section 5.5 of this EIAR. Therefore, there

is no potential for the proposed development to contribute to any potential for cumulative impacts in this

regard when considered in-combination with other plans and projects.

The potential for impacts to result in significant cumulative effects when considered in-combination with

other plans and projects was assessed. Taking into consideration the reported residual effects from other

plans and projects in the area and the predicted effects with the current proposal, no significant residual

cumulative effects have been identified with regard to any ecological receptors.

5.7 Conclusion The proposed development site is dominated by agricultural grassland grazed by horses comprising

predominantly of Dry meadows and grassy verges (GS2) and some Dry calcareous and neutral grassland

(GS1). The fields within the site are divided by Hedgerows (WL1) and Treelines (WL2). Habitats

recorded on site were assessed as being of no greater than local importance (higher value). No habitats

listed in Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive were recorded within the site boundary and no protected

plant species were recorded, as described in Section 5.4.1.

The proposed development has been designed in order to retain existing mature treelines and hedgerows

features both within the site and along the site boundary and minimise the loss of such linear landscape

features. This will retain connectivity to the wider landscape for species such as commuting and foraging

bats and birds. In addition, the Landscape Master Plan for the site provides for supplementary planting

of native tree and shrub species that will create and enhance hedgerows and treelines. It also provides for

the creation of wildflower meadows and wetlands, which will enhance the overall biodiversity within the

site.

Following the implementation of mitigation and best practice measures, no significant negative effects on

faunal species including badger, bats or bird species are predicted during either construction, operation or

decommissioning (not anticipated). The proposed measures have the potential to lead to an increase in

biodiversity within the site.

The proposed development has been designed to protect water quality in downstream waterbodies and

measures are included to ensure that there is no significant effect on any watercourse during any phase of

the development.

A comprehensive assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development on biodiversity has

been undertaken and it is concluded that provided that the proposed development is constructed and

operated in accordance with the design, best practice and mitigation that is described within this

application, significant effects on biodiversity are not anticipated at any geographic scale.